Ex Parte Seal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

14135100 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/135,100 12/19/2013 Matthew SEAL DELP/0002 (064339) 3351
26290 7590 06/27/2017
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P.
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
PEREZ-ARROYO, RAQUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
pair_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
jcardenas @pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW SEAL
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—5, 7—13, 15—20, and 22—21} Claims 6, 14, and 21
have been canceled. App. Br. 12—17 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed May 26, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed October 26,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 25, 2016, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 24, 2017.
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
The Invention
Appellant’s invention concerns
techniques for comparing data between dissimilar data
hierarchies. A user selects data from one hierarchy, and a
mapping to a node in a structure that provides a normalized
hierarchy is found. After identifying a node mapped to by the
data selection, elements corresponding to a second hierarchy
that also map to the same node are identified. Doing so allows
comparable elements of otherwise dissimilar hierarchies to be
identified. As a result, users may make meaningful
comparisons across different data sets, even where the data sets
do not share a common organizational or hierarchical structure,
but nevertheless store semantically comparable information.
Spec. 115; see Figs. 4—5.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A computer-implemented method for obtaining data
corresponding to comparable elements in a first hierarchy and a
second hierarchy, the method comprising:
receiving a selection of one or more elements in the first
hierarchy;
identifying, by operation of one or more computer
processors, a mapping from the one or more elements in the
first hierarchy to a node in an entity pool, wherein the entity
pool identifies the mapping from the one or more elements to
the node based on contextual information associated with the
one or more elements', and
upon determining one or more elements in the second
hierarchy map to the identified node in the entity pool:
retrieving data corresponding to the one or more
elements in the first hierarchy and the one or more elements in
the second hierarchy, and
returning the retrieved data.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Wotring
Wheeler
Bernstein
Liang
Block
US 2002/0010700 A1
US 2002/0055932 A1
US 2007/0055655 A1
US 2009/0144609 A1
US 7,822,654 B2
Jan. 24, 2002
May 9, 2002
Mar. 8, 2007
June 4, 2009
Oct. 26, 2010
The Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 26, and 27 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wheeler and Wotring. Final Act.
3-17.
Claims 7, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wheeler, Wotring, and Bernstein. Id. at 18—21.
Claims 2, 10, 17, and 23—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wheeler, Wotring, and Liang. Id. at 21—25.
Claims 3,11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wheeler, Wotring, and Block. Id. at 26—29.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
WHEELER AND WOTRING
Regarding independent claim l,2 the Examiner finds that Wheeler
teaches “identifying ... a mapping from the one or more elements in the
first hierarchy to a node in an entity pool.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted),
Ans. 2 (both citing Wheeler 146). The Examiner states that Wheeler does
2 Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are argued as a group. App. Br. 8.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27 are not separately
argued. Id. at 8—10. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
not disclose expressly the identified mapping is “based on contextual
information associated with the one or more elements” as recited, turning to
Wotring. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Wotring || 35, 50-51, 58); Ans. 3 (citing
Wotring || 34—35, 50-51, 58). The Examiner then proposes combining this
teaching in Wotring with Wheeler to yield the recited “entity pool identifies
the mapping from the one or more elements to the node based on contextual
information associated with the one or more elements” to increase the
mapping’s accuracy and relevancy. Final Act 5 (citing Wotring || 3, 9).
Appellant argues “identifying an element based on contextual
information of underlying attributes, such as that taught in Wotring, differs
from identifying mappings from elements to a node in an entity pool based
on contextual information associated with the elements, as claimed.” App.
Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Wheeler and Wotring collectively would have taught or suggested “the
entity pool identifies the mapping from the one or more elements to the node
based on contextual information associated with the one or more elements”?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1. The Final Action and the Examiner’s
Answer both state Wheeler teaches “identifying ... a mapping from the one
or more elements in the first hierarchy to a node in an entity pool.” Final
Act. 3 (emphasis omitted), Ans. 2 (both citing Wheeler 146). Appellant
4
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
does not contest this finding in Wheeler. App. Br. 8—10. In particular,
Wheeler teaches a user defined mapping, which is specified in a data entity
hierarchy or through an externally associated file. Wheeler 146. Wheeler’s
mapping pairs each hierarchical tree entity to another entity (e.g., a node in
an entity pool) in a separate heterogeneous tree structure (e.g., a hierarchy),
and the mapping can also be specified for attributes (e.g., elements)
represented in the hierarchical data entity. Id. As such, the record
reasonably illustrates Wheeler teaches “identifying ... a mapping from the
one or more elements in the first hierarchy to a node in an entity pool” and
that such an identified mapping as recited is known in the art.
The Examiner further explains, Wotring is relied upon to teach to
teach the “based on contextual information associated with the one or more
elements” component of the known “identifying ... a mapping” step. Ans.
3 (emphasis omitted). We thus consider what Wheeler and Wotring
collectively teach or suggest to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention and not just what Wotring teaches as argued by Appellant. App.
Br. 8—10. That is, “the test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Wheeler teaches an example of three different hierarchical data
entities (e.g., Trees A—C or 200, 204, and 208) that represent a person or
customer having the same or heterogeneous data elements, which are shared
or related across the different structures based on, for example, subset,
synonym, and similar structure match relationships. Wheeler || 42-43, Fig.
2. For example, hierarchy 200, depicted as Tree A, has subsets or attributes
“Name” 225, “Date of Birth” 215, and “SSN” 220 for a Person or node 210,
5
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
and hierarchy 204, depicted as Tree B, has attributes “Name” 285, “DOB”
275, and “Social Security #” 245 for Person or node 235. Id. 42-43, Fig.
3. Wheeler therefore teaches the identified mapping discussed in paragraph
46 relates elements (e.g., DOB, Date of Birth, SSN, and Social Security #) to
a node (e.g., 210 or 235) based on information associated with the elements.
See id. H 42-43, 46, Figs. 2-3.
Nonetheless, the Examiner states “Wheeler does not appear to
expressly disclose the entity pool identifies the mapping from the one or
more elements to the node based on contextual information associated with
the one or more elements” and turns to Wotring. Final Act. 4. Wotring
teaches a hierarchical map structure that stores information (e.g., contextual
information) from the relational structure at logically appropriate positions
and contains elements analogous to the attributes in the hierarchy data entity
shown in Figure 1. Wotring || 33—35, Figs. 1—2. The map structure of
Figure 2 contains a core property (e.g., an “Entity Path” or “Entity Context
Path”) that allows individual elements to identify an attribute in a hierarchy
data entity to which an element relates. Id. H 35, 51; see also Ans. 3
(discussing “Entity Context Path”) (emphasis omitted). For example, Figure
2 shows a hierarchy tree structure that identifies and maps related elements,
such as Entity Path = ‘\Person\Date of Birth’ 205, Entity Path =
‘\Person\SSN’, Entity Path = ‘\Person\Name’, and Entity Path =
‘\Person\Physical Description’, to a core property, such as Entity Path =
‘\Person’ 201. See id. at Figs. 1—2.
As such, Wotring teaches one known technique for identifying a
mapping from one or more elements to a node (e.g., upper left box in Figure
2) based on contextual information (e.g., a core property, such as “Entity
6
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
Path” and “Entity Path = ‘\Person’”) associated with the elements. See id.
33—35, Figs. 1—2. This technique further allows data in different
databases, which may have different formats and structure, to be shared.
Wotring 13 (cited in Final Act. 5). Combining such teachings in Wotring
with Wheeler’s known arrangement of identifying a mapping from one or
more elements in the first hierarchy to a node in an entity pool predictably
yields no more than identifying such a mapping based on a core property
(e.g., “based on contextual information associated with the” element(s) as
recited in claim 1). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the “Entity Context Path” in
Wotring “is a link to an individual element of a map structure to an attribute
of a hierarchical data entity,” which “differs from an entity pool that
‘identifies the mapping from the one or more elements to the node based on
contextual information associated with the one or more elements.’” Reply
Br. 2 (citing Wotring 135). We disagree. First, claim 1 does not exclude
contextual information of fixed or predefined attributes from being the
recited “contextual information” that the entity pool uses to identity the
mapping from the one or more elements to the node. Second, Wotring
teaches more than identifying missing information based on contextual
information as argued. Reply Br. 2. As discussed above, Wotring teaches
creating a hierarchy map structure using properties that facilitate the
mapping of entities by storing information at logically appropriate positions
and using a core property (e.g., contextual information) to identity an
attribute to which an element relates. See Wotring || 33—35, Figs. 1—2.
Appellant has not sufficiently rebutted these findings.
7
Appeal 2017-004591
Application 14/135,100
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20,
26, and 27, which are not separately argued.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 22—25 are separately
rejected based on Wheeler, Wotring, and one other reference. Final Act. 1,
8—29. Appellant does not separately argue these claims or their
corresponding rejections. App. Br. 8—10. For the above reasons, we sustain
the rejections of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 22—25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7—13, 15—20, and
22—27 under § 103.
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
8