Ex Parte Dheap et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

11390398 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte VIJAY DHEAP and BAIJU D. MANDALIA
________________

Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

Dissenting Opinion filed by SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

2
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Chong (US 2006/0036633 A1; Feb. 16, 2006) in view of
Stoffel (US 2004/0117346 A1; June 17, 2004).1
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being a substantial
duplicate of claim 1. We do not consider this objection because it is
reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 (see MPEP §§ 1002, 1201)
and is thus not within the jurisdiction of the Board. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d
892, 894 (CCPA 1967).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates generally to information that may be
defined or organized in an ontology or format, and a method of enabling two
organizations or entities to interact with one another and exchange
information via mappings between their different ontologies. See generally
Spec. ¶ 0001; Figs. 1, 2.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method of storing at least one validated results set in a global
ontology database for future use by an entity that subscribes to said global
ontology database comprising:
determining if global ontology data is stored in a global ontology
database;
if global ontology data is stored in said global ontology database,
attempting to determine a mapping between first and second ontologies from
said global ontology data;

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 21,
2009, as modified by the Amendment to the Appeal Brief filed August 12,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 4, 2009; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed February 1, 2010.
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

3
if a mapping between said first and second ontologies is determined
from said global ontology data, validating said mapping between said first
and second ontologies, and defining said validated mapping as a validated
first results set;
if global ontology data is not stored in said global ontology database
or a mapping between said first and second ontologies can not be determined
from said global ontology data stored in said global ontology database,
unifying said first and second ontologies by determining a mapping between
said first and second ontologies, validating said mapping between said first
and second ontologies, and defining said validated mapping as a validated
first results set;
if global ontology data is stored in said global ontology database and
said global ontology data includes a results set comprising a mapping
between said first and second ontologies, determining the mapping between
said first and second ontologies by retrieving said mapping between said
first and second ontologies from said global ontology database, validating
said mapping between said first and second ontologies, and defining said
validated mapping as a validated first results set;
wherein said validating said mapping between said first and second
ontologies comprises inferring corrections to mappings between elements of
said first and second ontologies from corrections made by a user to data;
and
storing said validated first results set in said global ontology database
for future use by an entity that subscribes to said global ontology database.

The Examiner finds that Chong discloses every recited feature of
independent claim 1 except for validating mapping between first and second
ontologies comprises inferring corrections to mappings between elements of
the first and second ontologies from corrections made by a user to data. The
Examiner finds that Stoffel, particularly Figure 9, teaches the aforesaid
features that are not shown in Chong. Ans. 3-6, 9-12.
Appellants argue that Stoffel’s Figure 9 does not teach the disputed
limitation. Instead, they contend, Stoffel only teaches extending definitions
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

4
of a reference ontology and/or allowing a user to append his/her definitions
to a reference ontology. Reply Br. 2:3-4, 8.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Chong and
Stoffel collectively teach validating mapping between first and second
ontologies comprises inferring corrections to mappings between elements of
the first and second ontologies from corrections made by a user to data?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a “mapping between said first and second ontologies”
(claim 1, l. 6) and “validating said mapping between said first and second
ontologies” (claim 1, ll. 7, 12-13, 17-18). Without expressly finding which
elements in Chong correspond to the recited first and second ontologies, the
Examiner nonetheless finds that Chong’s validate function in Figure 2
teaches validating mapping between first and second ontologies. Ans. 4:12-
14, 21-22; 5:5-6. Although Chong does not explain how its validate
function in Figure 2 operates or what it validates, we find that the
Examiner’s interpretation of Chong, including its Figure 2 is reasonable (i.e.,
that Chong’s system validates a mapping between first and second
ontologies) because Figure 2 shows an arrow from ontology specification
220 to the validate function and another arrow from the validate function to
ontologies table 201.
The Examiner also finds that Chong does not teach that validating the
mapping between first and second ontologies comprises inferring corrections
to mappings between elements of the ontologies from corrections made by a
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

5
user to data. Ans. 5:9-12; 10:6-9. The Examiner relies upon Stoffel for
these teachings. Ans. 5:13-18; 10:9–12:10. Hence, the issue set forth
above: has the Examiner erred by finding that Chong and Stoffel collectively
teach validating mapping between first and second ontologies comprises
inferring corrections to mappings between elements of the first and second
ontologies from corrections made by a user to data?
The Examiner first finds that Stoffel generally teaches validating
mapping between first and second ontologies. Ans. 5:14-15 (citing ¶¶ 0004,
0079, 0085, 0138). We agree with this finding.
The Examiner then finds that Stoffel teaches that its validating
function comprises inferring corrections to mappings between elements of
the first and second ontologies from corrections made by a user to data.
Ans. 5:15-18; 10:10–12:10 (citing ¶¶ 0004, 0051-54, 0126-31, 0138, 0144;
Figs.1, 6, 9).
Referring to Stoffel’s Figure 9, the Examiner equates UserA’s
ontology and UserB’s ontology to the claimed first and second ontologies
(Ans. 11:6-8), and equates Stoffel’s Reference ontology to the claimed
global ontology (Ans. 11:10; 12:6-7).
The Examiner then makes the critical finding: “In Figure 9 . . .
UserA’s Ontology and UserB’s Ontology are validated [by] mapping the
elements (e.g., walk, travel, ride, etc.) [to] each other via using the Reference
Ontology.” Ans. 11:6-10. As we indicated above, Appellants argue that
Stoffel’s Figure 9 does not teach the disputed limitation. Instead, they
contend, Stoffel only teaches extending definitions of a reference ontology
and/or allowing a user to append his/her definitions to a reference ontology.
Reply Br. 2:3-4, 8. We agree with Appellants.
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

6
In Figure 9, mapping between elements of UserA’s ontology and
elements of UserB’s ontology can only occur in two ways. The first
possible mapping route is a direct mapping between UserA’s ontology and
UserB’s ontology without going through the reference ontology. The
absence of any arrow between UserA’s ontology and UserB’s ontology in
Figure 9 and the absence of any discussion in Stoffel’s Specification
regarding such a direct mapping negate that possibility.
The second possible mapping route is through the reference ontology
because, as the Examiner correctly recognized, “[t]he Claims [do] not
require[] the particulars of how validating the mapping between the first and
second ontologies [is done].” Ans. 11:3-5. Although Figure 9 shows two
arrows in different directions between UserA’s ontology and the reference
ontology, and although Figure 9 also shows two arrows between UserB’s
ontology and the reference ontology, both arrows involving UserB’s
ontology are directed in the same direction: from UserB’s ontology to the
reference ontology. There is no arrow from the reference ontology to
UserB’s ontology. Therefore, even though there is a mapping between each
user’s ontology and the reference ontology and even though each user’s
ontology shares a common element (“walk”), Figure 9 shows that the two
user ontologies are independent of each other and does not show mapping
between the two user ontologies via the reference ontology.2

2 The Examiner’s reference to Stoffel’s paragraph 0144 (which describes the
function of Figure 7) is unavailing. First, the Examiner has relied upon
Figure 9, not Figure 7, to support the rejection. Second, the Examiner made
no findings regarding what Figure 7 shows in view of paragraph 0144.
Third, although Figure 7 shows a two-way arrow between UserA’s ontology
and the reference ontology, Figure 7 does not show any arrow between
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

7
We therefore conclude that the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Stoffel teaches mappings between
elements of UserA’s and UserB’s ontologies.
Although Appellants argued Stoffel individually and failed to argue
the appropriateness of the combination of Stoffel and Chong, we are
compelled to reverse the Examiner. There is no reasonable basis for the
combination because of Stoffel’s failure to teach mappings between
elements of its UserA and UserB ontologies.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) claim 21 which recites commensurate limitations;
and (3) claims 2 and 6-8 for similar reasons. Since this issue is dispositive
of our reversing the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not reach
Appellant’s other arguments regarding claims 6-8. App. Br. 21.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 6-8, and 21.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 21.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 21 is reversed.

REVERSED

UserB’s ontology and the reference ontology or between UserA’s and
UserB’s ontologies. We decline to make any findings regarding Figure 7 in
the first instance on appeal.
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

8
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, DISSENTING:
I agree that Figure 9 and paragraph 144 of Stoffel do not teach
mapping between the first and second users’ ontologies, but rather teach
mapping each of the first and second ontology to a reference ontology.
However the Examiner relies on Chong, rather than Stoffel, to teach
mapping between the first and second ontologies and to teach validating said
mapping between said first and second ontologies. Ans. 4-5. This finding
remains unchallenged by Appellant.
The Examiner modifies Chong’s teaching of “validating said mapping
between said first and second ontologies” to include “inferring corrections to
mappings between elements of said first and second ontologies from
corrections made by a user to data” using the teachings of Stoffel. Ans.
5. Appellant has not addressed the combined teachings of Chong and Stoffel
as made by the Examiner, but rather argues Stoffel individually. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2-3. To the extent that Appellant’s point is Stoffel alone does not
map between elements of first and second ontologies, Appellant is
correct. However, Appellant has not addressed the combination of Chong
and Stoffel made by the Examiner.
Looking at figure 9 of Stoffel in light of the teachings of Chong as
found by the Examiner, Chong teaches validating mapping between a first
ontology and a second ontology (Ans. 4-5), such as User A’s ontology and
User B’s ontology. Stoffel teaches “inferring corrections to mappings
between elements [of two] ontologies from corrections made by a user to
data.” Ans. 5, 10-11 (citing Fig. 9 and ¶ 144). Chong’s teaching of
validating mapping between User A’s ontology and User B’s ontology can
be modified to include inferring corrections to mappings between elements
Appeal 2010-004733
Application 11/390,398

9
of the ontologies from corrections made by a user to data as taught by
Stoffel. Ans. 5-6.
In other words, modifying the “validating mapping between the first
ontology and the second ontology” as taught by Chong to include “inferring
corrections to mappings between elements [of two] ontologies from
corrections made by a user to data” as taught by Stoffel yields the
predictable result of “validating said mapping between said first and second
ontologies comprises inferring corrections to mappings between elements of
said first and second ontologies from corrections made by a user to data” as
recited in claim 1.
To the extent that Appellant addresses Figure 9 and paragraph 144 of
Stoffel on pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief, Appellant’s arguments do little
more than quote the reference, quote the claim language, and allege the two
are different. Appellant has not addressed nor rebutted the combination of
Chong, which teaches validating mappings between elements of a first and a
second ontology, and Stoffel, which teaches inferring corrections to
mappings between elements from corrections made by the user to
data. Since the Examiner’s combination teaches all the elements of the
disputed limitation, combining the known elements yields predictable
results, and Appellant has not shown any error in the combination, I would
affirm the rejection.

babc