Ex Parte Cookson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2012

10748441 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BENNETT COOKSON, JR., KEN BOYER,
JAMES MARK HAMILTON, KENDALL J. JEFFERSON,
DAREN THAYNE, and MICHAEL J. WOLFGRAMM
____________________

Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, HYUN J. JUNG, and JEREMY M.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bennett Cookson, Jr. et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7-15, 18, 19, 21-34, 36, and
38-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Huff (US 2002/0032687
A1, pub. Mar. 14, 2002). Appellants have elected not to appeal the
rejections of claims 2-6, 16, 17, 20, 35, and 37. App. Br. 2. We suggest that
the Examiner cancel these claims upon return of jurisdiction of this
application to the Examiner. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480
(BPAI 2008) (precedential). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A computerized method of creating a family tree,
comprising:
at a host computing system, receiving genealogy
data from at least one primary source;
creating one or more node records and one or more
link records using the genealogy data, wherein individual
node records include at least name data and each
individual link record includes relationship data that
represents a relationship between individual node
records;
comparing individual node records and identifying
pairs of records having similar data;
for each identified pair of individual node records,
comparing related individual node records and deciding
based on predetermined criteria whether the identified
pair of individual node records represent the same
person;
consolidating the information from a plurality of
records determined to represent the same person into a
single person record by, at least in part, adding
Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
3
information from a plurality of records determined to
represent the same person to the single person record;
at the host computing system, receiving a request
from a user computer to display a family tree;
using the individual link records, the individual
node records, and the single person records to create a
data representation comprising the requested family tree;
and
sending the data representation to the user
computer for display.
OPINION
Claims 1, 7-15, 18, 19, and 21-28
Appellants rely on the arguments asserted for claim 1 in contesting the
rejection of claims 7-15, 18, 19, and 21-28. App. Br. 6, 7. Thus, we decide
the appeal with respect to this group of claims on the basis of claim 1.
Appellants argue that “Huff does not teach comparing related node
records and using predetermined criteria to assess pairs of records having
similar data.” App. Br. 6.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs [0123] and [0164] of Huff in
addressing these claim limitations. Ans. 3.
In the paragraphs alluded to by the Examiner, Huff discusses the need
for online accumulation and comparison of data from multiple sources with
the goal of accurate linking and allowing for multiple data interpretations to
address the problem of duplication without loss of any contributed data
(para. [0123]), and proposes a splicing/hiding process to address this need
(para. [0164]). See also paras. [0158], [0159]. Huff also refers to this
splicing/hiding process as “Shadow Deletes” (para. [0153]). Specifically, in
accordance with Huff’s process, when a submitter wishes to delete a
person’s name and associated pedigree from the search list and replace it
Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
4
with a replacement name and associated pedigree, the submitter enters a
delete transaction (para. [0163]). The delete transaction contains the number
of the name to be deleted, the number of the replacement name, and the user
number of the submitter (para. [0164]). In order to put and keep the delete
transaction in effect, the delete record will have an indicator that must be set
on (id.). Before storing the delete record in the database and setting the
indicator on, the computer first counts the connections of the old name to be
deleted, and then counts the connections of the name to replace it (id.). The
new name must have at least as many links backward, sideways, and
forward as does the old name for the computer to set the indicator on (id.).
This ensures that the submitter has done his homework and will continue to
do his homework (id.). If a search indicates that the number of connections
for the new name is not equal to or greater than those for the old name, no
switch is set on, and the duplication continues to appear (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that the comparison of the number of
connections for the old name and for the new name satisfies the limitation in
claim 1 “comparing related individual node records.” We also agree with
the Examiner that Huff’s requirement that the number of connections for the
new name be equal to or greater than the number of connections for the old
name constitutes “predetermined criteria,” as called for in claim 1. See Ans.
12. Thus, the Examiner correctly found that Huff’s computer’s decision
whether or not to set the indicator on, based on the predetermined criteria
(i.e., whether the number of connections for the new name are at least equal
to the number of connections for the old name), satisfies the claim 1 step of
“deciding based on predetermined criteria whether the identified pair of
individual node records represent the same person.” As acknowledged by
Huff, the check performed by the computer may not be a “conclusive” (para.
Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
5
[0164]) or particularly reliable indication that the records are for the same
person, but the check nevertheless is based on “predetermined criteria,” as
broadly recited in claim 1 (see Ans. 12).
Appellants argue that “the determination of whether to delete the
original record is made by a human examiner, following this initial check.”
Reply Br. 3. This assertion appears to be a factually inaccurate
characterization of Huff’s system. While Huff discloses that the delete
transaction is initially submitted by a human submitter, paragraph [0164]
discloses that the computer decides, based on the comparison of the number
of connections for the old name and the number of connections for the new
name, whether or not to store the transaction record and set the indicator on
to delete the old name from searches. The “hand link done by a
professional,” characterized in paragraph [0166] as preferable to an
automatic process for same, is a transaction that “establishes all the needed
links for the new name into the old name’s submission data” ([para. [0165]).
This “hand link” is not the determination whether to set the indicator on to
give effect to the delete transaction. Moreover, in any event, claim 1 does
not appear to exclude human intervention in the comparing and deciding
steps.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Huff. We sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 7-15, 18, 19, and 21-28 as anticipated by Huff.
Claims 29-34, 36, and 38-41
Appellants group claims 29-34, 36, and 38-41 in contesting the
rejection. App. Br. 7. Thus, we select claim 29 to decide the appeal with
respect to this group of claims.
Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
6
Appellants argue that “Huff does not teach ‘perform[ing] a
relationship analysis to infer relationships among persona records using the
assertions of the persona records; if a relationship is inferred, assign at least
one relationship type to the relationship between the records.’” App. Br. 7.
In addressing these limitations, the Examiner points to paragraphs
[0172] and [0116] of Huff, as well as to the comparing and setting indicator
on steps of the “Shadow Deletes” or splicing/hiding process of paragraph
[0164] discussed above. Ans. 6, 12.
Huff discusses checking indexed records having the same source
reference notation (e.g., two census records entries or two land record
entries) where both references point to the same person or to related people
(para. [0172]). If the check indicates the records point to different but
related persons, the records should be linked, as appropriate, to the names in
the database (para. [0173]). Huff discloses creating links to tie together
family connections, such as, for example, the names of “imported spouses”
in one descendant cone (i.e., spouses who married into the family of the
descendant cone) to their parents in the descendant cone containing the
parents of the imported spouse (para. [0116]). If, on the other hand, the
check indicates that the records point to the same person, the records may
simply constitute a confirmation of the same information (para. [0172]).
However, if they point to two different numbered people with the same
name, this may indicate a duplicate situation that needs attention (id.). Huff
discloses a “Shadow Deletes” or splicing/hiding process to delete duplicate
names and associated pedigrees from searches in paragraph [0164], as
discussed above.
Either the check discussed in paragraph [0172] or the check discussed
in paragraph [0164] satisfies the step of “performing a relationship analysis
Appeal 2010-006312
Application 10/748,441
7
to infer any relationships with other persona records” of claim 29. Further,
either the family tie link creation discussed in paragraph [0116] (see also
para. [0173], discussed supra) or setting the indicator on as discussed in
paragraph [0164] satisfies the step of “if a relationship is inferred, assigning
at least one relationship type to the relationship between the records” of
claim 29. Appellants do not adequately explain why the Examiner’s
findings are in error.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 as anticipated by Huff. We sustain the
rejection of claims 29-34, 36, and 38-41 as anticipated by Huff.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7-15, 18, 19, 21-34, 36,
and 38-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Huff is affirmed.
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

hh