Ex Parte Kulack et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 20, 2016

13035310 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/035,310 02/25/2011 46797 7590 07/22/2016 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR FREDERICK A. KULA CK 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. ROC920100167US1 2549 EXAMINER OHBA, MELLISSA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2016 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): Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com IBM@P ATTERSONSHERIDAN.COM rociplaw@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FREDERICK A. KULACK, KEVIN G. PATERSON, and SHANNON E. WENZEL Appeal2015-001680 Application 13/035,310 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 10, 11, 14--20, and 23-27. Claims 1-9, 12, 13, 21, and 22 have been cancelled. (Br. 14--16). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2015-001680 Application 13/035,310 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to analyzing documents in a research domain to identify assertions, including the strength of such assertions. (Spec. i-fi-1 4, 19). Claim 10, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 10. A computer program product analyzing a document with a managed research domain, the computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer- readable program code comprising: computer-readable program code configured to parse text of a first document to identify one or more assertions made by the text of the first document, wherein each assertion comprises one or more premises and at least one conclusion; and computer-readable program code configured to, for each identified assertion: generate assertion metadata describing a relationship between one or more topics in the assertion, wherein the assertion metadata further comprises a measure of strength of the identified assertion, and determine a set of documents stored by the managed research domain that contain assertions regarding the topics identified in the assertion; and computer-readable program code configured to provide an indication to a user of the set of documents that contain assertions regarding the topics identified in the one or more assertions. 2 Appeal2015-001680 Application 13/035,310 REJECTIONS Claims 10, 14--19, and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Willse et al. (US 2004/0059736 Al; published Mar. 25, 2004) and Rosenberg (US 2005/0203924 Al; published Sept. 15, 2005). Claims 11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Willse, Rosenberg, and Dettinger et al. (US 2011/0270856; published Nov. 3, 2011). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Willse and Rosenberg teaches or suggests "the assertion metadata further comprises a measure of strength of the identified assertion" as recited in independent claims 10 and 19? The Examiner finds Willse' s confidence and levels of concepts teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. (Ans. 3-5; Final Act. 3). Specifically, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner construes "measure of strength" as "confidence." (Ans. 7). The Examiner states "[t]he confidence is an indication of the 'strength' of the relationship between the concept and the document." (Ans. 3; see also Ans. 4--5). The Examiner finds "[ d]etermining confidence factors in the field of one of ordinary skilled in the art is determining/measuring strength because a confidence factor decides the likelihood of the, in this case concept, is accurate or certain." (Ans. 6-7). Appellants contend Willse 's confidence measure is used to determine how strongly latent concepts are believed to be represented in a document. 3 Appeal2015-001680 Application 13/035,310 (Br. 8). According to Appellants, Willse describes a measure of confidence in the system's own determinations, not a measure of a how strongly an assertion is made by the content of the document. (Br. 9). Appellants state a "measure of strength" is "a measure of how strongly an assertion is made by a given document." (Br. 9-11, citing Spec. i-fi-1 46, 4 7, 49). We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. "[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the ,~pec{.flcation. '' In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). \Ve find the Examiner's interpretation of the "rneasure of strength~' unreasonably broad in light of the Specification and inconsistent with both the Specification and the claim language. \Ve note that clairn terms are not interpreted in a vacuum, devoid of the context of the claim as a whole. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.~' Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa 'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Although we agree with the Examiner that Appellants do not explicitly define the "measure of strength" in the Specification, we disagree with the Examiner's findings that the claim language offers no teachings to contradict the Examiner's interpretation. (See Ans. 6-7). Rather, the claim language requires the "measure of strength of the identified assertion." Such terminology is consistent with Appellants' use of "strength" in the Specification. (E.g., Spec. i-f 19 ("strength of each of the assertions"); i1 45 ("strength of the assertion"); i1 46 ("strength of the overall assertion in each 4 Appeal2015-001680 Application 13/035,310 of the statements"); if 49 ("strength 328 describes the relationship 324 that is stated by the author of the statement and characterizes the amount or degree of conviction of the opinion of the author, as to the relationship 324 between the first topic 322 and second topic 526"). Willse describes using text analysis to determine a concept representation for a set of documents. (Willse Abstract). As the Examiner notes, Willse's confidence refers to the relationship between the concept and the document. (Ans. 7). Specifically, Willse describes the confidence that a concept is discussed in a document. (Willse if 37). We agree with Appellants that such disclosure does not teach or suggest the "measure of strength of an identified assertion." Rather, at most it teaches or suggests the presence of an identified assertion in a document, not the strength of the identified assertion itself, as claimed. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hans and Rosenberg teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10 and 19 for the reasons set forth above, and the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 11, 14--18, 20, and 23-27 for the same reasons. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 11, 14-- 20, and 23-27 is reversed. REVERSED 5