Ex Parte Creel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12971541 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/971,541 12/17/2010 Christopher T. Creel
58898 7590 05/02/2016
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC
20 South Clark
Suite 600
CHICAGO, IL 60603
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12845/10062A 8140
EXAMINER
GURMU, MULUEMEBET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CREEL
Appeal2014-005732
Application 12/971,541
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER and
JEFFREYS. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005732
Application 12/971,541
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-32, which are all the claims pending in the application. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
16. A system for providing access to a plurality of heterogeneous
data sources, each of the plurality of heterogeneous data sources
characterized by a heterogeneity different from a heterogeneity of at least
one other of the plurality of heterogeneous data sources, the plurality of
heterogeneous data sources being operative to store a plurality of data
items, each of the plurality of data items being associated with at least one
of a plurality of entities, the system comprising:
a data source identification processor operative to store
association data representative of at least an association between each of
the plurality of entities and each of the plurality of heterogeneous data
sources, the data source identification processor being further operative
to store access data representative of the heterogeneity of each of the
plurality of heterogeneous data sources;
a request interface operative to receive a first request from a
requestor wherein the first request specifies a first operation associated
with at least one of the plurality of entities;
the data source identification processor being coupled with the
request interface and further operative, based on the specified at least one
of the plurality of entities, to determine a subset of the plurality of
heterogeneous data sources to which the first operation should be
performed and the heterogeneity of each of the determined subset of
heterogeneous data sources;
the system further comprising a request generator coupled with
the data source identification processor and operative to generate and
send a data source request to each of the determined subset of the
1 A hearing was held on April 21, 2016.
2
Appeal2014-005732
Application 12/971,541
plurality of heterogeneous data sources, each data source request being
generated based on the heterogeneity of the data source to which it is
being sent and specifying the first operation to be performed; and
a result processor operative to receive, in response to the sending,
at least one result of the performance of the first operation from at least
one of the determined subset of the heterogeneous data sources, the
result processor being further operative to augment each of the received
at least one result with an identifier which identifies the entity of the
specified at least one of the plurality of entities associated therewith, and
provide the augmented at least one result to the requestor.
Blount
Stead
Prior Art
US 6,772,159 Bl
US 2006/0287890 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Aug. 2, 2004
Dec. 21, 2006
Claims 16-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stead and Blount.
ANALYSIS
Section 1 OJ rejection of claims 16--30
The Examiner finds claims 16-30 are directed to software per se
because paragraph 29 of Appellants' Specification discloses "the system
may be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof." Ans.
2-3. Appellants contend the "data source identification processor" and the
"request interface" recited in claim 16 are hardware limitations. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants. We highlight paragraph 29 of Appellants'
Specification also discloses computer program logic stored in memory and
3
Appeal2014-005732
Application 12/971,541
executable by one or more processors. Thus, while the Examiner's rejection
focuses on the term "system" and the possibility that the system may be
implemented solely in software, claim 16 recites hardware components as
identified above by Appellants. Accordingly, we find the claimed system,
read in light of paragraph 29 of Appellants' Specification, excludes a
system implemented in purely software.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-32
Appellants contend Stead does not teach "determining ... a subset of
the plurality of heterogeneous data sources" as recited in independent claim
1. Br. 12-14. Independent claims 16 and 31 recite similar limitations.
Paragraph 136 of Stead teaches receiving data and information on a patient
from one of multiple remotely located sources, and parsing the data and
information using a parser specific to the one remotely located source, such
as one of sources 716 shown in Figure 7. The remotely located sources 716
are "heterogeneous data sources" as taught, for example, in the title and
abstract of Stead. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or
argument to distinguish "determining ... a subset of the plurality of
heterogeneous data sources" as recited in claim 1 from the process of
receiving and parsing patient information and data from a remotely located
source as taught by Figure 7 and paragraph 136 of Stead.
Appellants further contend the combination of Stead and Blount does
not teach "generating and sending a data source request to each of the
determined subset of the plurality of heterogeneous data sources" as recited
4
Appeal2014-005732
Application 12/971,541
in claim 1. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants contend Blount does not
teach heterogeneous data sources. Id. However, the Examiner relies on
Stead to teach heterogeneous data sources (Final Act. 4--5), and relies on
Blount to teach generating and sending a data source request for data subsets
(Final Act 6-7). The combination of Stead and Blount teaches requesting
and receiving data from one of a plurality of heterogeneous data sources.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished "generating and sending a
data source request to each of the determined subset of the plurality of
heterogeneous data sources" as recited in claim 1 from requesting and
receiving data from one of a plurality of heterogeneous data sources as
taught by the combination of Stead and Blount. We also highlight Stead
alone teaches receiving the data taught in paragraph 136 in response to a
request as suggested by the abstract and the access components 701 and 702
shown in Figure 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5