Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019002502 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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.
13/907,319 05/31/2013 Jon Bentley 4366CSM-186 1678
48500 7590 12/30/2020
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
LOONAN, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte JON BENTLEY
____________________

Appeal 2019-0025021
Application 13/907,319
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–19 and 212. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 20 was previously canceled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system for compressing data files that
contain a large number of similar lines of data, such as a log file. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for compressing data, comprising:
storing, by a microprocessor, a plurality of lines of data
from a file in a cache;
getting, by the microprocessor, an additional line of data;
processing, by the microprocessor, each line of data in the
cache individually using the additional line of data, wherein a
line of data in the cache being processed is a current line, wherein
the additional line of data is compressed, based on a first
compression algorithm, using the current line, wherein a
compression level is determined based on the compression of the
additional line of data with the current line, wherein the
compression level is compared to a threshold compression level,
wherein the compression level is compared to a best matched
compression level, and wherein a best matched line of data is set
to the current line and the best matched compression level is set
to the compression level if the compression level is greater than
the best matched compression level;
determining, by the microprocessor, if the best matched
compression level meets a level of compression;
in response to determining the best matched compression
level meets the level of compression, compressing, by the
microprocessor, the additional line of data based on the best
matched line of data, writing the compressed additional line of
data to the file, and storing the additional line of data in the cache;
and
in response to determining the best matched compression
level does not meet the level of compression, writing, by the
microprocessor, the additional line of data to the file and storing
the additional line of data in the cache.
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
3

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Clark, II US 5,686,912 Nov. 11, 1997
Richardson US 6,400,293 B1 Jun. 4, 2002
De Bonet US 6,535,642 B1 Mar. 18, 2003
Ramjee US 2009/0187673 A1 Jul. 23, 2009

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–7, 9–12, 14–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Clark and De Bonet. Final Act. 3–7.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Clark, De Bonet, and Ramjee. Final Act. 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Clark,
De Bonet, and Richardson. Final Act. 7–8.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8–14, 16, 19, and 21
Claim 1 requires “processing, by the microprocessor, each line of data
in the cache individually using the additional line of data.” The Examiner
finds that Clark teaches this limitation by disclosing a compression system
that compares raw input data to a dictionary. Final Act. 3 (citing Clark,
Fig. 2, 3:24–34); Ans. 3–4 (citing Clark, 3:32–42). Appellant contends that
although Clark teaches comparing raw data to data in a dictionary, Clark
fails to compare the raw data to each line of data in the dictionary and thus
fails to meet the claim requirement of “processing . . . each line of data in the
cache individually.” Appeal Br. 6–7. As support, Appellant submits the
following Figure as an illustration of its argument.
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
4

Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s provided Figure illustrates a scenario where raw
data “AC” is compared to a dictionary. Id. Appellant argues that in this
scenario where raw data “AC” is compared to the dictionary, a match is
found in the first line in Step 38A. Id. at 8. As a result, in this example, a
comparison to dictionary entries “AB” and “AA” would not be performed.
Id. (citing Clark, 3:40–41). In view of this example, Appellant asserts that
Clark fails to teach “processing, by the microprocessor, each line of data in
the cache individually using the additional line of data,” because Clark
would not always compare raw data to each line of data in the dictionary.
Id. Appellant further asserts that Clark’s failure to always compare the raw
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
5

data to each line in the dictionary is evidence of “why it would not be
obvious to use the teachings of Clark for claim 1 because Clark would
provide compression results that would be less efficient (providing reduced
compression levels).” Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As noted by the
Examiner, although Appellant describes a scenario that does not meet the
required claim limitation, Clark teaches scenarios where raw data is
compared to each line of data in the dictionary because Clark discloses
“[t]he raw data . . . is the subject of a search in the dictionary 30 in step 38.”
Ans. 3 (citing Clark, 3:32–42, Fig. 2); Clark, 3:24–31. To put it another
way, a search of the dictionary necessarily may entail a search of each line
of data in the dictionary. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
argument and illustration demonstrates that Clark teaches the disputed
limitation because “[r]aw Data of ‘AA’ would be compared to each and
every entry in the dictionary as ‘AC’ and ‘AB’ would be compared prior to
attempting to compare to ‘AA’ in the dictionary, and as such each line of the
dictionary or cache would be processed meeting the scope of the claims.”
Id. at 4.
Claim 1 further requires “the best matched compression level is set to
the compression level if the compression level is greater than the best
matched compression level.” Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner finds that
Clark discloses that data is matched with dictionary entries and a
determination is made whether or not to repeat the cycle to obtain a more
effective compression. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Clark, 3:32–42, 15:13–20).
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
6

Appellant argues that Clark does not compare a compression level for
a string to any other compression level in the dictionary when the new string
is compared. Appeal Br. 8. More specifically, Appellant asserts
Clark does not teach that the threshold (the matched compression
level of claim 1) is ever set to a new threshold (the best matched
compression level of claim 1) when it is a determined that the
compression level for the new string is over the threshold.
Instead, a new code is created (not a new compression level) that
is used to replace the st[r]ing of raw data (and additional
matches), thus providing compression. Therefore, Clark [does]
not teach that “the best matched compression level is set to the
compression level if the compression level is greater than the best
matched compression level.”
Id. at 8.
In response, the Examiner finds that Clark discloses “a determination
is made whether or not to repeat the input cycle to obtain a more effective
compression, and PREVCODE is set equal to the best match string found so
far and the DEPTH variable is ‘incremented' (or greater than) to the new
string length of PREVCODE." Ans. 4 (citing Clark, 3:32–42). We agree
with the Examiner. Clark defines DEPTH as a “[v]ariable which contains
the number of characters in the string represented by PREVCODE” and
PREVCODE as a “variable which contains the address of the best dictionary
match that has been found so far.” Clark, 5:18–20, 5:22–23. Therefore,
DEPTH reflects a level of compression through the number of characters in
a dictionary string. Id. Moreover, the variables DEPTH and PREVCODE
are updated to reflect the best matched compression level when the
compression level is greater than the best matched compression level. Ans.
4–5 (citing Clark, 3:32–42).
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
7

Claim 1 further requires “in response to determining the best matched
compression level meets the level of compression, compressing, by the
microprocessor, the additional line of data based on the best matched line of
data, writing the compressed additional line of data to the file, and storing
the additional line of data in the cache.” The Examiner finds that Clark
teaches this limitation by determining whether the compression coefficient is
less than a threshold and, if not, staying in compressed mode. Final Act. 4
(citing Clark, Fig. 2, Step 52, 4:3–6, 3:31–32). The Examiner explains that
if an entry in the dictionary is found, it is a “best matched entry” as claimed
and may be used for compression. Id. at 9 (citing Clark, 3:31–34, 7:23–56;
Spec. ¶ 19).
Appellant argues that Clark discloses “only a single threshold
(compression level) that is used to determine if an entry is placed into the
dictionary. Compression levels between entries in the dictionary are not
compared because there is not a compression level stored in the dictionary.”
Appeal Br. 9. In other words, Appellant asserts that “[i]n Clark, the best
matched string is used. Not a best matched compression level.” Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that Clark discloses that DEPTH and PREVCODE “are used to
track the threshold corresponding to a ‘best match so far’ which results in a
determination of a ‘best match.’” Ans. 5 (citing Clark, 3:32–42, 15:13–20).
For the reasons described above, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8–14, 16, 19
and 21, which are not separately argued.
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
8

Claims 4 and 15
Claim 4 further requires “replacing, by the microprocessor, the
number of matched characters with an identifier that defines the number of
matched characters and defines a line number of the best matched line of
data in the file.” Claim 15 recites substantially similar subject matter. For
this limitation, the Examiner finds that Clark teaches replacing a long string
with a brief code from the dictionary. Ans. 5–6 (citing Clark, 1:28–45); see
Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues that “[d]efining the number of matched characters
and line number of the best matched line is more than replacing matched
characters with an identifier as the Examiner asserts.” Appeal Br. 10–11. In
other words, Appellant argues that Clark merely discloses a unique code that
is associated with a combination of characters, but does not teach that the
unique code “defines the number of matched characters or the line number
of the best matched line of data in the file.” Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 7–
8. As an example, Appellant directs us to the Specification which describes
the use of 1*20 in File 113 to “show the line number of the best matched
line (line 1) and the number of matched characters (20 a's).” Id. at 11 (citing
Spec. ¶ 23).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it
misconstrues the claim language. Claim 4 recites “replacing . . . the number
of matched characters with an identifier.” Claim 4 does not require that the
identifier recite the line number and number of matched characters as shown
in the Specification. Spec. ¶ 23. Rather, claim 4 further defines the
identifier as data that “defines the number of matched characters and defines
a line number of the best matched line of data in the file." Accordingly, we
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
9

agree with the Examiner that the number of matched characters and the line
number of the best matched line of data in the file are “merely what the
identifier represents.” Ans. 6 (citing Clark, 1:28–45). When construing the
claims in this manner, it is clear that Clark’s brief codes represent a number
of matched characters and a line number of the best matched line of data in
the dictionary. Clark, 1:28–45 (“As the data is compressed, the dictionary
entries are created and updated, and the brief codes substituted for the
(usually) longer strings they represent.”). Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 4. For the same reason, we affirm the rejection of claim
15.
Claims 6 and 17
Claim 6 further requires “the plurality of repetitions of characters in
the additional line of data are compared to the best matched line of data and
a second best matched line of data.” Claim 17 recites substantially similar
subject matter. Here, as above, the Examiner finds that Clark teaches a
dictionary search to meet the claimed comparison to the best matched line of
data and a second best matched line of data. Ans. 6; see Final Act. 6 (citing
Clark, 1:28–45).
Appellant argues that Clark merely teaches creating a unique code to
substitute for characters. Appeal Br. 12. More specifically, Appellant
argues that “Claim [6] recites where the plurality of [repetitions] of
characters in the additional line of data are compared to the first and second
best matched line of data. . . . Clark does not disclose this element of
claim 6.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner that “the claim limitation recites the line of data is
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
10

compared to the other lines of data.” Ans. 6. Hence, “[c]omparison of a line
of data is simply accomplished by the aforementioned dictionary search of
[Clark].” Id. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6. For the same
reason, we affirm the rejection of claim 17.
Claims 7 and 18
Claim 7 further requires that “the compressed line further comprises a
line number of the second best matched line of data in the file.” Claim 18
recites substantially similar subject matter. Appellant argues, as above, that
Clark does not disclose any defined line numbers of the best matched line in
the code. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues that as a result, Clark
fails to disclose a line number of the second best matched line of data as
well. Id.
We agree with Appellant. Here, the Examiner again directs us to
Clark’s disclosure of performing a dictionary search and replacing characters
with a unique identifier. Final Act. 6 (citing Clark, 1:28–45). The Examiner
further states that “[w]hile the claims recite ‘a line number of the second best
matched line of data in the file’, such a limitation merely recites an intended
use of the identifier or what an identifier (line number) represents; the Office
maintains the brief codes disclosed by CLARK satisfy this purpose.” Ans.
7. We disagree with the Examiner, because unlike claim 4, claim 7 does not
refer to an identifier, but rather, explicitly requires the compressed additional
line of data to include “a line number of the second best matched line of data
in the file.” See Appeal Br. 13.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 7 or claim 18 which recites substantially similar subject matter.
Appeal 2019-002502
Application 13/907,319
11

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6, 8–17, 19 and 21 are
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 18 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9–
12, 14–19,
21
103(a) Clark, De Bonet 1, 3–6, 9–
12, 14–17,
19, 21
7, 18
2, 13 103(a) Clark, De Bonet,
Ramjee
2, 13
8 103(a) Clark, De Bonet,
Richardson
8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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-IN-PART