OSTHUS INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 20212020005203 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021) 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. 14/923,703 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation