Ex Parte Nezhad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

13238430 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/238,430 09/21/2011 HAMID REZA MOTAHARI NEZHAD
56436 7590 11/16/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82799838 7864
EXAMINER
CHEUNG, HUBERT G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAMID REZA MOTAHARI NEZHAD,
CLAUDIO BARTOLINI, and PARAG M. JOSHI
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8, 9, 13-17, 22, and24-29. Claims 7, 10-12,
18-21, and 23 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
matching a particular case to further cases, where the matching is based on
plural attributes contained in the particular case and in the further
cases. Abstract. 2
Claims 1, 2, and 13 are representative of the claims on appeal and
read as follows (with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a system having a processor, a particular case
that is associated with an issue that is to be addressed by an
enterprise; and
matching, by the system, the particular case to further
cases that have been processed, the matching comprises
matching based on plural attributes contained in the particular
case and in the further cases, wherein a given one of the plural
attributes relates to a flow of activities taken to address the
respective case, wherein the matching based on the given
attribute that relates to a flow of activities comprises comparing
a flow of activities of the particular case with flows of activities
of the respective further cases, and wherein the matching
comprises computing individual similarity scores for each
individual attribute of the plural attributes, where the individual
similarity scores of each respective one of the plural attributes
indicate similarities of the further cases to the particular case
according to the respective attribute.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Aug. 25, 2014
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Jan. 20, 2015 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed Apr. 21, 2015 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply
Brief filed June 16, 2015 ("Reply Br."); and, the Specification filed Sept. 21,
2011 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
building indexes for respective ones of at least some of the
plural attributes,
wherein the matching uses the indexes.
13. An article comprising at least one non-transitory machine-
readable storage medium storing instructions that upon execution
cause a system to:
compare attributes of a particular case to attributes of
further cases that have been processed, wherein the particular
case and further cases relate to at least one issue that is to be
addressed by an enterprise, wherein the attributes compared
include an attribute relating to a flow of activities taken in the
particular case, wherein comparing the attribute relating to the
flow of activities taken in the particular case comprises
comparing the flow of activities taken in the particular case with
flows of activities taken in the respective further cases, wherein
the comparing comprises computing similarity scores for each
individual one of at least some of the plural attributes, wherein
the similarity scores for a given one of the at least some attributes
indicate similarities of the further cases to the particular case;
and based on the comparing, match at least one of the
further cases to the particular case; wherein the matching is based
on the similarity scores, and wherein the matching comprises
identifying a predefined number of the further cases that are most
similar to the particular case, based on the comparing.
App. Br. xiv-xvi (Claims App'x.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13-16, 22, and 24--29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Johnson et al.
(US 5,978,785; issued Nov. 2, 1999) ("Johnson") and Sakaguchi et al. (US
2003/0195782 Al; published Oct. 16, 2003) ("Sakaguchi"). Final Act. 4--
17.
3
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
Claims 3, 4, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Johnson, Sakaguchi, and Berkheimer
et al. (US 7,447,713 Bl; issued Nov. 4, 2008). Final Act. 18-20.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 133 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Johnson teaches the
disputed limitation of claim 13: "wherein the comparing comprises
computing similarity scores for each individual one of at least some of the
plural attributes, wherein the similarity scores for a given one of the at least
some attributes indicate similarities of the further cases to the particular
case." App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellants acknowledge the
Examiner equates the "properties" of Johnson with the "attributes" of claim
13 and that one portion of Johnson cited by the Examiner, column 1, lines
18-38, "refers to assigning weights 'to different properties of each case.'"
App. Br. 7-8. According to Appellants, however, claim 13 recites "multiple
similarity scores are computed for an individual attribute" and "it is clear
that Johnson clearly does not provide any teaching or hint of computing
multiple similarity scores for each individual property in Johnson." Id. at 8;
Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants also argue, although Johnson refers to weighting
assigned to specified properties (citing Johnson 24:9-19), "[d]eriving a
weighted property value for a specific property still results in only one score
per property" and "[i]n contrast, claim 13 recites multiple similarity scores
computed for each individual attribute." Reply Br. 5.
3 We decide the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13-15, and 24--29, which are
rejected under the first-stated ground of rejection, on the basis of
representative claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. First, Appellants' arguments regarding claim 13 are premised on an
incorrect construction of the disputed limitation. Appellants' argue the
disputed limitation recites "multiple similarity scores are computed for each
individual attribute of at least some of the multiple attributes of the case."
See App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, that in claim
13, "there is no mention of computing multiple similarity scores for each
individual property as argued by the applicant." Ans. 2. Although the
disputed limitation uses the plural term "scores" in the phrase "computing
similarity scores for each individual one of at least some of the plural
attributes," the plural case is necessary in the context of the entire phrase
because a similarity score is computed for each individual attribute of
multiple attributes-" of at least some of the plural attributes." Appellants'
argument that the disputed limitation means that multiple similarity scores
are computed for an individual attribute is conclusory and not supported by
persuasive reasoning or any disclosure in the Specification. Thus, we
conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the language
of the disputed limitation to mean that a similarity score is computed for
each individual attribute of at least some of the attributes of a particular case.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding
Johnson failing to teach the disputed limitation because they are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 13. See In re Self, 671 F .2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because
... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.").
Second, we agree with the Examiner that Johnson teaches or suggests
the properly construed disputed limitation of claim 13. See Ans. 2-3. In
5
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
that regard, the Examiner finds Johnson teaches "weights [are] assigned to
different properties of each case to score past cases for similarity to the
current case." Id. at 2 (citing Johnson 1: 18-38). The Examiner also finds
Johnson teaches "retrieving case history instances with property values that
match the property values of the current problem." Id. (citing Johnson
23: 11-22). The Examiner further finds Johnson teaches "assigning weights
to specific case properties." Id. at 3 (citing Johnson 24:9-19). Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut these findings,
but instead argue the Examiner has failed to show Johnson teaches
computing multiple similarity scores for each individual property or attribute
as recited in claim 13. See Reply Br. 4---6. Thus, based on the proper
construction of the disputed limitation as discussed supra and for the reasons
stated by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt
them as our own.
Based on this record, we do not find error ( 1) in the Examiner's
findings that Johnson teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim
13 or (2) in the Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Johnson and
Sakaguchi renders the subject matter of claim 13 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13, as
well as the rejection of claims 1 and 24, which contain similar limitations to
the disputed limitation of claim 13. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 22, and 24--29, which
depend variously from claims 1, 13, and 24 and are not argued separately.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
Rejection of Claims 2 and j6 under 35 U.S.C. § j03(a)
Appellants contends Johnson does not teach or suggest "building
indexes for respective ones of at least some of the plural attributes," as
recited in claims 2 and 16. App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds Johnson
teaches the limitation of these claims because Johnson teaches "entering and
updating values and weights for each property associated with a case
instance and storing the case instances in a case base. A data file can be
used to store multiple case instances, where the data file comprises the
multiple case instances as well as indexes, which are used to retrieve the
data, where the data are the values and weights for each property in the case
instances (i.e., thus, creating indexes for the various properties). Ans. 4
(citing Johnson 21: 61-22: 6). In response, Appellants argue, and we agree,
"the Examiner has misconstrued Johnson when asserting that indexes are
created for various properties" because "Johnson is clear in stating that the
indexes refer to cases." Reply Br. 8 (see Johnson 22:2--4 ("the case
instances can be loaded in their entirety. The data file, comprising multiple
case instance objects or indexes can be retrieved")). Thus, the Examiner's
finding that Johnson teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claims 2
and 16 is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of
the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)
("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable,
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
7
Appeal2015-006403
Application 13/238,430
supply deficiencies in its factual basis."). Accordingly, on this record, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 16.
Rejection of Claims 3, 4, and 17 under 35 U.S. C. § 103 (a)
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 17, Appellants argue in view of the
allowability of base claims 1 and 13 over Johnson and Sakaguchi, "the
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, and 17 over Johnson,
Sakaguchi, and Berkheimer has been overcome." App. Br. 12. Because we
agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Johnson and
Sakaguchi renders the subject matter of base claims 1 and 13 obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 17 has been
overcome. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, 13-
15, 17, 22, and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8