Ex Parte Calo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13912147 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/912,147 06/06/2013 Seraphin Bernard Calo 0464-011C/YOR920120913US2 5096
55459 7590 08/25/2017
PATENT PORTFOLIO BUILDERS, PLLC
P.O. BOX 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
HU, JENSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Mailroom @ PPBLAW. com
T ripp @ PPBLAW. com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERAPHIN BERNARD CALO,
DOUGLAS M. FREIMUTH, RAGHU KIRAN GANTI,
JAMES J. FAN, and FAN YE1
Appeal 2017-005970
Application 13/912,147
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Applicant is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-005970
Application 13/912,147
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to “data collection in
networked devices.” Spec. 13.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A question answering system comprising:
a computing system comprising:
an application layer comprising at least one
application running on a computing system, the
application configured to receive a natural language query;
a semantic interpreter in communication with the
application and configured to translate the natural
language query into a data request specification, the data
request specification comprising an identification of types
of data to be obtained that are responsive to the natural
language query;
a phenomenon layer configured to receive the data
request specification and to generate data collection
requirements comprising phenomena responsive to the
data request specifications, each phenomenon comprising
an event occurring in real time at a given physical location
over a given time period; and
an edge layer in communication with the
phenomenon layer and configured to receive the data
collection requirements and to identify raw data required
to satisfy the data collection requirements, the phenomena
comprising a high level abstraction of the raw data;
a plurality of data generating network devices, each data
generating networked device comprising physical sensors;
and
a plurality of identical common software agents, each common
software agent executing on one of the plurality of data
generating networked devices and in communication with
the edge layer, the common software agents configured to
2 Appellants state that the instant appeal is related to US Patent Application
No. 13/912,058 (Appeal 2017-005085). App. Br. 1-2.
2
Appeal 2017-005970
Application 13/912,147
use the physical sensors disposed in the given physical
location during the given time duration to obtain the
identified raw data required to satisfy the data collection
requirements.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION3
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Srikanth (US 2011/0196852 Al, published Aug. 11,
2011) and Feldman (US 2002/0026278 Al, published Feb. 28, 2002). Final
Act. 2-12.
ANALYSIS
Because Appellants argue claims 2—20 based on claim 1 (App. Br.
13), our decision with respect to claim 1 is dispositive of this appeal.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5—14; Reply Br. 2—7) alleging error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 3—5) do not persuade us of
error. Appellants’ arguments are best exemplified by the following:
Therefore, as with Srikanth, Feldman does not disclose the
data collection requirements that contain phenomena responsive
to the data request specifications where each phenomenon is an
event occurring in real time at a given physical location over a
given time period and is a high level abstraction of the raw data
obtained by the physical sensors that are disposed in the given
physical location during the given time duration. Therefore,
Feldman cannot provide teachings to one of skill in the art
regarding these elements that can be used to modify Srikanth in
order to achieve the claimed invention. Therefore, one of skill in
the art given Srikanth either alone or in combination with
3 Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claim 2 of copending US Patent Application No. 13/912,058.
Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-005970
Application 13/912,147
Feldman would not be provided with sufficient teachings to
practice the claimed invention as currently recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12. Yet Appellants acknowledge the following:
Feldman transforms “a spatial representation of a road network
12 into a network of spatially interdependent and interrelated
oriented road sections, for forming an oriented road section
network 14.” (para. [0042]) Next a “variety of vehicular traffic
data and information associated with the oriented road section
network ... [is obtained] ... from a variety of sources.” (para.
[0051]) This can be obtained from mobile sensors associated
with vehicles including cellular phones contained within the
vehicles.
Id. 11—12 (citing Feldman H 42, 51).
We find no persuasive argument or evidence in the latter quote—or
elsewhere—to convince us that the former claim is valid. Specifically, in
our view, the claimed “raw data” reads directly on Feldman’s mobile sensor
data (11 51, 55), and the claimed “phenomenon” (“an event occurring in real
time at a given physical location over a given time duration that is a high
level abstraction of raw data to be collected by the data capture system”)
reads directly on Feldman’s “vehicular traffic data” and/or the higher level
abstraction of “vehicular traffic related service applications” (“modeling and
processing vehicular traffic data and information, and using the modeled and
processed vehicular traffic data and information for providing a variety of
vehicular traffic related service applications to end users”) (131).
Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Feldman
discloses whatever of claim 1 Srikanth lacks, namely “using physical sensors
located in a plurality of data generating networked devices in the data
capture system disposed in the given physical location during the given time
duration to obtain the raw data in real time.” Final Act. 5. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable over the
4
Appeal 2017-005970
Application 13/912,147
combination of Srikanth and Feldman (Final Act. 3—5) and the Examiner’s
response (Ans. 2—9) to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 4—12).
DECISION4
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether the claims recite patent eligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
134 S.Ct. 2347, 2350 (2014).
5