OSTHUS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2021

2020005203 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

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.
14/923,703 10/27/2015 Wolfgang Colsman 1682-002U 9753
29973 7590 12/01/2021
Shutts & Bowen LLP
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
525 Okeechobee Blvd
Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EXAMINER
BARTLETT, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2021 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
patents@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte WOLFGANG COLSMAN and JOCHEN HORMES,
_______________

Appeal 2020-005203
Application 14/923,703
Technology Center 2100
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 9 through 11, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 4, 8, and 12 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Osthus GmbH, is the real party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005203
Application 14/923,703

2
INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method for linked data driven
semantic data storage and access utilizing horizontal reification. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method for linked data driven semantic data storage
and access utilizing horizontal reification, comprising:
creating data for linked data access in a data store;
computing meta-data regarding the created data
comprising a time of
creation of the data and a creator of the data;
encapsulating the created data and the meta-data into a set
of multiple different triples in corresponding multiple different
records of a triple store; and,
reducing the set of multiple different triples in the
corresponding multiple different records of the triple store
pertaining to the created data into a single multi-column record
by eliminating redundantly present fields so as to produce a
single multi-column record specifying the created data combined
with the corresponding meta-data and appending to the single
multi-column record three columns of reification data pertaining
to the created data, the multi-column record comprising a
combination of the created data with the three columns of
reification data comprising both a reification uniform resource
identifier (URI) and an identity of an end user who had created
the created data the identity being sourced from the meta-data
regarding the created data that had been encapsulated into one of
the corresponding multiple different records of the triple store,
the reducing comprising removing redundantly present data by
the triple store so that on retrieval the multi-column record is
expanded by adding the removed redundantly present data.

Appeal 2020-005203
Application 14/923,703

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 9
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et
al. (US 2008/0126397A1, May 29, 2008) (“Alexander”), Bhattacharjee et al.
(US 2011/0225167 A1, Sept. 15, 2011) (“Bhattacharjee”) and Hosomi et al.
(US 2010/0121885 A1, May 13, 2010) (“Hosomi”). Final Act. 2–25.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 9 through 11.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 7, and 9 through 11 is in error as the combination of Alexander,
Bhattacharjee, and Hosomi does not teach the claim limitation directed to
“the identity being sourced from the meta-data regarding the created data
that had been encapsulated into one of the corresponding multiple different
records of the triple store.” App. Br. 6–8, Reply Br. 2–7. Appellant’s
arguments focus on Hosomi and assert that Hosomi teaches that metadata
can show a creation date, time and creator for data. App. Br. 6–7 (citing
Hosomi ¶ ¶ 29, 31, and 32). Thus, Appellant argues:
Hosomi, the identity of the creator of the metadata is stored in a
database. But the metadata is not “encapsulated into one of the

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 3,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed July 1, 2020 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed August 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed May 1, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-005203
Application 14/923,703

4
corresponding multiple different records of the triple store.”
Instead, in Hosomi the metadata is simply stored in a database
which is not so specifically described in Hosomi as being a
record a triple store.
Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant’s
arguments on pages 3 through 4 of the Answer. In this response the
Examiner states that it is the combination of Alexander, Bhattacharjee, and
Hosomi that is used to teach the disputed limitation. Ans. 3–4. Specifically,
the Examiner identifies that in the rejection Bhattacharjee teaches
encapsulating the created metadata in multiple different records of a triple
store. Ans. 4 (citing Bhattacharjee ¶6) and that Hosomi teaches that meta-
data can includes data about creation time and the creator of the data. Ans. 4
(citing Hosomi ¶¶ 29, 31 and 32). Based upon these findings the Examiner
concludes:
one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further
modify the encapsulated created data and metadata triples as in
Bhattacharjee with the specific metadata including a time of
creation of the data, creator of the data and sourcing of the
metadata as in Hosomi in order to efficiently track the
modification history of the triples within the triple store.
Ans. 4–5.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. As identified above
Appellant’s arguments focus on Hosomi and assert that it does not teach:
the identity is sourced from the meta-data regarding the created
data that had been encapsulated into one of the corresponding
multiple different records of the triple store. But, as claimed, it is
a requirement that the identity of an end user who had created the
created data is sourced from meta-data regarding the created data
Appeal 2020-005203
Application 14/923,703

5
that had been encapsulated into one of the corresponding
multiple different records of the triple store.
Reply Br. 6–7. We are not persuaded by this argument as the Examiner
relies upon Bhattacharjee to teach encapsulating data, including metadata,
and reducing the data, including the metadata as claimed. Final Act 5-6,
Ans. 4–5. We concur with these findings by the Examiner’s and note that
Appellant has not contested these findings. What the Examiner finds is
missing from Bhattacharjee, is the specific type of content in the metadata,
which identifies the end user who created the meta-data, and the Examiner
finds that Hosomi teaches this feature. We concur, Hosomi in paragraph 29
identifies that the metadata may include the date, time and creator of the
data.
Further, we concur that the skilled artisan would recognize that meta-
data including identity of the creator (such as discussed in Hosomi) can be
included in the meta-data used in Bhattacharjee’s teaching of encapsulating
data, including metadata, and reducing the data, including the metadata as
claimed. This combination is merely the combination of known elements.
The Supreme Court has said, that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007)), and the claimed invention recites merely “the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR 550 U.S. at
417. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 by Appellant’s arguments as they focus only on the teachings of
Hosomi, and not the combination of the references as relied upon by the
Examiner in the obviousness rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-005203
Application 14/923,703

6
Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to claims
2, 3, 5 through 7, and 9 through 11, accordingly Appellant’s have grouped
these claims with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). As such we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, and 9 through 11 for the
same reasons as claim 1
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 3, 5 through
7, and 9 through 11.

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7,
9–11
103 Alexander,
Bhattacharjee,
Hosomi
1–3, 5–7,
9–11

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED