Ex Parte SealDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 201714135100 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation