Ex Parte NjemanzeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201612942890 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/942,890 11/09/2010 Hugh S. Njemanze 56436 7590 03/24/2016 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. 82579436 2596 EXAMINER HASAN, SYED HAROON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2016 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 HUGH S. NJEMANZE Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 Technology Center 2100 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL .6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. C- "1 • ,• Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me nna1 reJecuon of claims 1-13, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. RELATED PROCEEDINGS The Specification identifies U.S. Patent Application 11/966,078 (now U.S. Patent 9,031,916 B2, May 12, 2015) and U.S. Patent Application 12/554,541 (now U.S Patent 9,166,989 B2, Oct. 20, 2015) as related to the 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 instant application. (Spec. if 1.) Application 11/966,078 and Application 12/554,541 were the subjects of Appeals 2012-001934, decided August 21, 2014, and 2012-002752, decided August 25, 2014, respectively. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to full-text searching and structured data stores. More particularly, it relates to enabling faster full-text searching using a structured data store." (Spec. if 2.) Claims 1 and 10, which are illustrative, read as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for storing information in an entry within a structured data store, wherein the entry includes one or more base fields and one or more extended fields, comprising: receiving a string; determining a meaning of an event from information in the string; storing the determined meaning of the event in the one or more base fields of the entry; identifying a portion of the string that is to be enabled for faster searching; parsing the identified portion of the string into a plurality of tokens; and for each token in the plurality of tokens: determining a hash value of the token based on a hashing scheme; and storing the token in an extended field that corresponds to the determined hash value. 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: for each token in the plurality of tokens: 2 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 if the token is the first token within the identified portion of the string: generating a beginning token that comprises a special character and the token, wherein the special character indicates that the token is the first token within the identified portion of the string; determining a hash value of the beginning token based on a hashing scheme; and storing the beginning token in an extended field that corresponds to the determined hash value. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Marchisio et al. US 2003/0233224 Al (hereinafter "Marchisio") Lowry Perkins et al. US 2005/0198070 Al US 2006/0287920 A 1 (hereinafter "Perkins") Millett US 2007 /0294235 Al Dec. 18, 2003 Sept. 8, 2005 Dec. 21, 2006 Dec. 20, 2007 Claims 1--4, 6, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Millett and Marchisio. (See Final Act. 3-6.) Claims 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Millett, Marchisio, and Perkins. (See Final Act. 6-9.) Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Millett, Marchisio, and Lowry. (See Final Act. 9-12.) Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App. Br." filed Aug. 20, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Dec. 16, 2013) and the Specification ("Spec." filed Nov. 9, 2010) for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Mar. 20, 2013) and Answer ("Ans." mailed Oct. 15, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions 3 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant does not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). ISSUES The issues presented by Appellant's contentions are as follows: Does Marchisio teach or suggest "determining a meaning of an event from information in the string; [and] storing the determined meaning of the event in the one or more base fields of the entry" (herein the "determined meaning limitation"), as recited in claim 1? Does Lowry teach or suggest "generating a beginning token that comprises a special character and the token, wherein the special character indicates that the token is the first token within the identified portion of the string" (the "beginning token limitation"), as recited in claim 1 O? Does Lowry teach or suggest "generating an ending token that comprises the token and a special character, wherein the special character indicates that the token is the last token within the identified portion of the string" (the "ending token limitation"), as recited in claim 11? ANALYSIS Claim 1 We have reviewed the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and conclusions regarding claim 1 (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 13-17) in light of Appellant's arguments and contentions (App. Br. 9-18; Reply Br. 4--13). We agree with the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and conclusions (Final 4 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 Act. 3--4; Ans. 13-17) and we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis. The Examiner finds Marchisio teaches the determined meaning limitation. (Final Act. 4 (citing Marchisio i-fi-184, 88, 104, 138, 151-155, 159, 171-176); see also Ans. 13-17 (additionally citing Marchisio i-fi-f 11, 86, 145, 147-148, Fig. 20).) Appellant contends "Marchisio does not extract or determine the meaning of an event from information in a string of data, as recited in independent claim 1." (Reply Br. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Appellant argues as follows: [I]n Marchisio, the enhanced data representations include putting the individual terms of a sentence into categories, such as "Argentina" being categorized as a country and "YPF" as an organization. However, categories of individual terms in a sentence do not provide the meaning of an event corresponding to information in the sentence. For instance, the categories "country" and "organization" for the terms "Argentina" and "YPF," respectively, in a sentence, do not provide the meaning of the sentence that contains "Argentina" and "YPF." (Reply Br. 6 (referring to Marchisio i-fi-f 145, 171, Figs. 20, 20A, 20B).) Appellant further argues that Marchisio' s enhanced data representations "are at most tags such as 'name' or 'date' (or other user configured values), [and] clearly do not provide the meaning of any type of event from information in the data set." (Reply Br. 6-7 (referring to Marchisio i-fi-f 11, 147-148).) Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the language of the determined meaning limitation. The determined meaning limitation does not recite determining the meaning of the received string, i.e., of a sentence. Rather, the limitation recites "determining a meaning of an event from 5 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 information in the string" (emphases added). Contrary to Appellant's argument, determining that the term "Argentina" in a sentence represents a country is determining a meaning of the sentence, i.e., a string, and of an event represented by the string, and is encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the determined meaning limitation. In other words, categorizing the word "Argentina" in a sentence as representing a country is a determination of a meaning of an event represented by the string from information in the string, i.e., a determination that the event pertains to a country. Similarly, tagging a term in a string representing an event as being a "name" or "date" (Marchisio i-f 11) determines a meaning from information in the string, and is encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the determined meaning limitation. We note that Appellant's Specification provides an example of the determined meaning limitation. (See Spec. i-fi-123-25, Fig. 1; see also App. Br. 3--4 (citing Spec. i-fi-123-33, 81-84, Figs. 2, 3 (items 320, 330, 340)).) In that example, one meaning extracted from the string is "Timestamp" (Spec. i-f 24), which is saved as a value in a time stamp field, similar to Marchisio' s "date" tag. Appellant contends that "Marchisio does not store the determined meaning of 'name' or 'date', but instead, appears to store values associated with the 'name' or 'date'." (Reply Br. 8 (referring to Marchisio i-fi-111, 171, 174).) Appellants' basic argument is that because Marchisio does not teach "determining a meaning of an event from information in the string," it cannot teach "storing the determined meaning of the event in the one or more base fields of the entry." (Id. (emphasis added).) We note that, similar to Marchisio, Appellants' Specification teaches that determined meanings of 6 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 events are stored as structured data values in fields, such as a time value in a timestamp field. (See Spec. i-fi-123-24, Fig. 1.). Consequently, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Marchisio teaches storing the determined meaning of the event in the one or more base fields of the entry. Appellant's remaining arguments attack other passages and aspects of Marchisio' s teaching relied on by the Examiner. The passages and aspects discussed supra adequately support the Examiner's findings and conclusions. Accordingly, we will not discuss Appellant's arguments regarding the other, cumulative, passages and aspects of Marchisio, other than to reiterate that we agree with and adopt the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and conclusions. Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections over various combinations of Millett, Marchisio, and Perkins of claim 1; independent claims 12 and 13, which were argued relying on the arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br. 18-19); and claims 2-9, which depend from claim 1 and were argued relying on the arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br. 20-21 ). Claims 10 and 11 The Examiner finds Lowry teaches or suggests the beginning token limitation of claim 10 (Final Act. 9-10 (citing Lowry i-f 172; Millet i-fi-f 18- 20, 69-73, Fig. 3); see also Ans. 17-19 (additionally citing Lowry i-fi-f 165, 167-170, Fig. 3)) and the ending token limitation of claim 11 (Final Act. 11 (citing Lowry i-f 172; Millet i-fi-f 18-20, 69-73, Fig. 3); see also Ans. 19-20). The Examiner maps the special character to Lowry's position number. (See Ans. 18 ("The number '1' corresponds to the claim limitation 'a special character ... wherein the special character indicates that the token is the first 7 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 token'." (ellipsis in original)), 19 ("The 'ending token' limitation of claim 11 can correspond to the index entry for the last word in the example of paragraph 172, 'text' at position 5, or to the index entry for the punctuation string of period-space with position 6.").) Appellant contends Lowry's position indicators are primitives indicating position that are not part of a beginning or an ending token. (See Reply Br. 18, 21.) Therefore, Lowry's position indicators do not teach or suggest a beginning token or an ending token that comprises a special character and the respective token. We agree with Appellant. While the broadest reasonable interpretations of the beginning token and ending token limitations are open ended, by virtue of the term "comprising," the claim recites that the respective tokens comprise, i.e., include, at least a token as determined in accordance with claim 1, and a special character. Lowry's position indicators are separate from Lowry's tokens. (Lowry Fig. 3.) Therefore, Lowry's tokens do not "comprise" a token and a position indicator. For emphasis only, we note that one of ordinary skill in the computer arts would understand a "special character" to be "[a]ny character that is not alphabetic, numeric, or the space character." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 492-3 (5th ed. 2002). This is consistent with the Specification, which discloses including "A" and "$" as the special characters in the beginning and ending tokens respectively. (Spec. i-f 73.) Lowry' s position indicators are numeric (Lowry i-f 172) and, therefore, are not "special characters" as that term is understood in the relevant art. Appellant has demonstrated error in the rejection of claims 10 and 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 over Millett, Marchisio, and Lowry. 8 Appeal2014-002705 Application 12/942,890 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9, 12, and 13 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10 and 11 is reversed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation