BlueTalon, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2020002958 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
14/980,525 12/28/2015 Pratik Verma 800162-US-NP[3] 6102
69316 7590 08/31/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
ljohnson@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PRATIK VERMA, RAKESH KHANDUJA, and
PRERNA VERMA
____________________

Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers
to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a
patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as BlueTalon, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates generally to data processing
in a network” (Spec. ¶ 1), and “[m]ore particularly . . . toward distributed
storage and distributed processing policy enforcement utilizing virtual
identifiers” (Spec. ¶ 1). Because different access methods for different
resources/systems have different query languages defining what results
should be returned and in what manner, Appellant asserts that policy
enforcement rules need to be generated for each data source (see Spec. ¶ 6).
Appellant discloses that query statements can be used to obtain data from
distributed storage and processing resources (see Spec. ¶ 3), in order to
provide “a technique for simplified policy” (Spec. ¶ 7). Exemplary
independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to key portions of
the claim at issue, reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
with instructions executed by a processor to:
assign virtual identifiers to blocks of a file that contain
identical information in different data sources of a distributed
storage and distributed processing system;
receive a query statement, wherein the query statement is
a distributed storage and distributed processing query statement
for processing by the distributed storage and distributed
processing system;
[A1] equate real name attributes of the query statement
with selected virtual identifiers [A1a] that manifest a common
concept [A2] that is expressed using different real terms in
different data sources of the distributed storage and distributed
processing system, [A3] such that each virtual identifier operates
as a proxy for disparate expressions used in the different data
sources;
apply access control policies to the selected virtual
identifiers to obtain policy results in a virtual domain; and
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

3

apply the policy results from the virtual domain to the real
name attributes of the query statement to obtain query results.
Claims Appendix A1 (emphases and bracketed lettering added). Remaining
independent claim 7 recites commensurate limitations and subject matter.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1–5 and 7–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Nishizawa et al. (US 6,694,306
B1; issued Feb. 17, 2004) (hereinafter, “Nishizawa”), Needham et al. (US
2005/0289342 A1; published Dec. 29, 2005) (hereinafter, “Needham”),
Disciascio et al. (US 2016/0065436 A1; published Mar. 3, 2016 and filed
Aug. 28, 2014) (hereinafter, “Disciascio”), and Wu (US 2012/0022928 A1;
published Jan. 26, 2012). Final Act. 5–14.
(2) Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the base combination of Nishizawa, Needham, Disciascio,
and Wu, further in view of Er et al. (US 2010/0325097 A1; published
Dec. 23, 2010) (hereinafter, “Er”). Final Act. 15.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–5 and 7–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the failure of
Disciascio, and thus the base combination of Nishizawa, Needham,
Disciascio, and Wu to teach or suggest virtual identifiers that manifest a
common concept (see claim 1, limitation A1a) that is expressed as recited in
limitation A2 of independent claim 1 (see claim 1, limitation A2) as set forth
in claims 1 and 7 (see Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5–6).2 Appellant relies on the

2 Although Appellant also argues that (i) Nishizawa fails to disclose
limitations A1, A1a, and A2 (see Appeal Br. 6–7); (ii) Wu fails to disclose
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

4

arguments presented as to claims 1 and 7 for the patentability of remaining
dependent claims 6 and 12 (see Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 7).
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–
11) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–8), the following dispositive issue is
presented on appeal:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Disciascio, and thus the base combination of
Nishizawa, Needham, Disciascio, and Wu, fails to teach or suggest virtual
identifiers (see claim 1, limitation A) that manifest a common concept (see
claim 1, limitation A1a) that is expressed as recited in limitation A2 of
independent claim 1, and as commensurately recited in remaining
independent claim 7?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 4–
11; Reply Br. 2–8), the Examiner’s rejection as to claim 1 (Final Act. 5–9),
and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 4–6) to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the
Examiner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of applied
references, and in particular Disciascio, teaches or suggests the subject
matter recited in the independent claims, namely the virtual identifiers (see
claim 1, limitation A1) that manifest a common concept (see claim 1,

limitation A3 (see Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 6), we do not address these
issues, as the outcome of the issue as to A1a and A2 is dispositive.
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

5

limitation A1a) that is expressed as recited in limitation A2 of independent
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5–6). Our reasoning follows.
The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an
administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational
reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967).
In this light, and in view of the Examiner’s explanations as to the
basis for the rejection of claims 1 (see Final Act. 5–9; Ans. 4–6) and 7 (see
Final Act. 10–14; Ans. 4–6), the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that
Disciascio teaches or suggests the disputed features of limitations A1, A1a,
and A2 as set forth in limitation A of claim 1, and as commensurately recited
in claim 7.
Specifically, the Examiner determines in the Final Rejection, and
repeats word for word in the Answer, that
Disciascio discloses, that manifest a common concept
that is expressed using different real terms in different data
sources of the distributed storage and distributed processing
system (The URI and the organization name for a particular
endpoint can be used, in step 208, to query information resources
on the Internet to identify additional information about the
endpoint. In response to queries of one or more structure
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

6

information sources or general search engines, a variety of
documents and data will be returned that can be lexically
analyzed for common words and concepts. For example, a
SPARQL query against DBpedia using the organization name
and URI will return an ontology from which keywords can be
automatically extracted ¶ [0030])

Final Act. 7; Ans. 5.
Disciascio’s step 208 in Figure 2 states “GATHER AVAILABLE
INFOMRATION ABOUT COMPANY” and operates to perform a query on
the Internet to return results such that “a variety of documents and data will
be returned that can be lexically analyzed for common words and concepts”
so that “keywords can be automatically extracted” (Disciascio ¶ 30).
However, Disciascio is silent as to equating query statement attributes
“with selected virtual identifiers that manifest a common concept that is
expressed using different real terms in different data sources of the
distributed storage and distributed processing system” as required by
limitations A1, A1a, and A2. Although Disciascio discloses analyzing
documents and data for common words and concepts (see Disciascio ¶ 30),
Disciascio is silent as to expressing any common concept “using different
real terms in different data sources of the distributed storage and distributed
processing system” as set forth in limitation A2 of claim 1, and as
commensurately set forth in claim 7.
At best, the Examiner’s proposed combination leaves us to speculate
as to how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
Disciascio’s analysis of Internet search results for common concepts meets
or suggests the equating attributes of query statements with selected virtual
identifiers (see claim 1, limitation A1) that manifest a common concept (see
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

7

claim 1, limitation A1a) that is expressed as recited in limitation A2 of
independent claim 1 (see claim 1, limitation A2) recited in claim 1. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017; Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112
(BPAI 1999) (unpublished) (“The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§] 134 is
not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the
application and resolve patentability in the first instance.”). The same
speculation is required for claim 7, as claim 7 stands rejected based on
similar reasoning (see Final Act. 13).
Because the Examiner’s findings regarding Disciascio fail to support a
conclusion of obviousness, Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. As a
result, Appellant has sufficiently demonstrated the prima facie case, based
on the findings as to Disciascio, to be in error.
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner (i) has not
sufficiently shown the combination of applied references teaches or suggests
selected virtual identifiers that manifest a common concept that that is
expressed as recited in limitation A2 of independent claim 1 (see claim 1,
limitation A2), as recited in claims 1 and 7; (ii) incorrectly relies upon
Disciascio to teach or suggest limitations A1, A1a, and A2 as set forth in
claims 1 and 7 (see, e.g., claim 1, limitations A1, A1a, and A2); and thus,
(iii) has not properly established factual determinations and articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness for claims 1 and 7, resulting in a failure to establish a prima
facie of obviousness.
As a result, based on the record before us, Appellant has shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
Appeal 2020-002958
Application 14/980,525

8

1–5 and 7–11 over the base combination of Nishizawa, Needham,
Disciascio, and Wu. For similar reasons, because claims 6 and 12 ultimately
depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively, and based on Appellant’s reliance
on the arguments presented as to claims 1 and 7, respectively, as to the
patentability of claims 6 and 12 (see Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 7), we
likewise cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 6
and 12 over the same base combination, further in view of Er.

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows:
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–11 103 Nishizawa,
Needham,
Disciascio, Wu
1–5, 7–11
6, 12 103 Nishizawa,
Needham,
Disciascio, Wu, Er
6, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–12

REVERSED