Ex Parte Henigman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 14, 2016

12402323 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/402,323 03/11/2009 27350 7590 04/18/2016 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP Box SA P.O. BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Timothy J. Henigman 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. 2008P01518US01 7484 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/18/2016 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): boxsa@patentusa.com docket@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY J. HENIGMAN Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a method and system for providing a data structure having a bottom-up representation of hierarchical data based on leaf nodes of the hierarchical data. (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for deriving from hierarchical data a data structure having hierarchies based on a leaf node entity, the method comprising: determining a reverse bridge table data structure for the hierarchical data, the reverse bridge table data structure including an association of all ancestor node entities of the hierarchical data for each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data and a hierarchical level for each association, the hierarchical level being a numerical value indicating the number of levels between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor; determining an ordered listing of the associations of the ancestor node entities and each leaf node entity based on the hierarchical level for each association; and providing a hierarchy table data structure including an ordered aggregation of the hierarchical levels for each of the leaf node entities. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Puri et al. US 6,751,622 Bl 2 June 15, 2004 Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 Dodge J andhyala et al. US 2007/0005615 Al US 7,499,939 B2 REJECTION 1 Jan.4,2007 Mar. 3, 2009 The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jandhyala in view of Puri and further in view of Dodge. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Appellant argues the claims together. (App. Br. 5.) We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group, and address Appellant's arguments thereto. At the outset, we note that independent claim 1 recites "A computer- implemented method for deriving from hierarchical data a data structure having hierarchies based on a leaf node entity," and of the body of the claim recites two separate "determining ... " steps and provides "a hierarchy table 1 We note that the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We leave it to the Examiner to reevaluate whether claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea with only a tangential, if any, relationship to a specific structure or machine. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that fundamental concepts, by themselves, are ineligible abstract ideas under Â§ 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014). The Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under Â§ 101 in light of the recently issued interim examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," Dec. 16, 2014. 3 Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 data structure," but the claim does not derive a data structure or specifically form a table. 2 Appellant contends that each of the independent claims require: determining a reverse bridge table data structure including an association for all ancestor node entities of the hierarchical data for each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data, and a hierarchical level for each association, wherein the hierarchical level is a numerical value indicating the number of levels between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor. (App. Br. 6.) Appellant further contends that the claimed invention requires: 1) an association for all ancestor node entities of the hierarchical data for each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data; 2) a hierarchical level for each association (i.e., 1 ), above); and 3) the hierarchical level being a numerical value indicating the number of levels between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor. (App. Br. 7)( emphases deleted). We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 2 We note the last step in the method provides a "hierarchy table data structure" which is not the "reverse bridge table data structure" and recites "including an ordered aggregation of the hierarchical levels for each of the leaf node entities" which may be different than the determined "ordered listing of the associations of the ancestor node entities." We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate the claim language in any further prosecution. 4 Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-12) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 3---6). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of Appellants' arguments as follows. The Examiner provides an explanation of the teachings of the three references applied in the obviousness rejection. (Ans. 3---6.) The Examiner explains how each of the three references teaches a portion of the claimed invention where the combination would have taught and fairly suggested the invention as recited in the language of independent claim 1. We note that Appellant individually addresses the "combination of JANDHY ALA and PURI" (App. Br. 7) and the Dodge reference (App. Br. 8-9), and contends that the references do not teach or suggest the totality of argued limitations. While we agree with Appellant's separate arguments, it is the combination of these teachings which the Examiner has relied upon in the rejection of representative claim 1. We find Appellant's argument to be conclusory and merely addresses disparate portions of the combination. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference." See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. (citations omitted); accord KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (obviousness analysis does not require precise teachings of the claimed subject; the 5 Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 analysis should account for the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ). The Examiner found that the combination of the Jandhyala and Puri references teaches and suggests providing member identifiers for each association between each leaf node entity and all ancestor node entities member identifiers, but the combination uses non-numeric member identifiers to show an ordered listing of relationships between the member and the top-level group. (Ans. 3--4.) The Examiner has relied upon the combination of the Dodge and Puri references to teach and suggest the use of numeric values in the database for member identifiers. (Ans. 5-6.) We agree with the Examiner that the overall combination would have taught or suggested the use of a numerical value indicating the number of levels between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor. Here, it is undisputed that the use of numerical values for levels in a table was known at the time of Appellant's invention and that storing the relationships between nodes was also known at the time of the invention. The Supreme Court has stated that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'!, 550 U.S. at 416. Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Moreover, merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c )(vii) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."). Merely alleging that the individual references fail to support an 6 Appeal2014-004798 Application 12/402,323 obviousness rejection (e.g., App. Br. 5-14, Reply Br. 1-5) is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Here, we find Appellant's arguments are conclusory in nature and fail to address the thrust of the Examiner's combination of teachings in the obviousness rejection. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that claim 1 recites "a hierarchical level for each association between all ancestor node entities and each leaf node entity of the hierarchical data, wherein the hierarchical level is a numerical value indicating the number of levels between a subject leaf node and an associated ancestor." (Reply Br. 1-2.) Again, Appellant argues the individual differences of each reference rather than what the combined teachings would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. (Reply Br. 1-5.) Consequently, we sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1 and independent claims 8 and 14 which have not been separately argued. Dependent claims 2-7, 9- 13, and 15-19 have not been separately argued and these claims fall with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7