Ex Parte 6624761 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 17, 2012

95000464 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,464 06/15/2009 6624761 2855.002REX2 8229
26111 7590 01/18/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.
Respondent
v.

REALTIME DATA LLC.
Patent Owner, Appellant
____

Appeal 2012-002367
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,464
United States Patent 6,624,761 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002367
Reexamination Control 95/000,464
Patent 6,624,761 B2

2

This proceeding arose from a third party request on behalf of Blue
Coat Systems, Inc. for an inter partes reexamination of U. S. Patent
6,624,761 B2 (the ‘761 patent), entitled “Content Independent Data
Compression Method and System,” assigned to Realtime Data LLC and
issued to James J. Fallon (September 23, 2003). Claims 1-3, 7, 17, and 21
presently stand rejected. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b)
and 306.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ‘761 patent describes “data compression and decompression
using content independent and content dependent data compression and
decompression” (col. 6, ll. 16-18).
Claim 1 on appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for compressing data, comprising the steps of:
analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify a data type
of the data block, the input data stream comprising a plurality of disparate
data types;
performing content dependent data compression on the data block, if
the data type of the data block is identified;
performing content independent data compression on the data block, if
the data type of the data block is not identified.
(App. Br. 40, Claims Appendix.)

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Whiting US 5,003,307 Mar. 26, 1991
Seroussi US 5,389,922 Feb. 14, 1995
Park US 5,528,628 Jun. 18, 1996
Kari WO 97/48212 Dec. 18, 1997
Franaszek US 5,870,036 Feb. 9, 1999
Sebastian US 6,253,264 B1 Jun. 26, 2001

Appeal 2012-002367
Reexamination Control 95/000,464
Patent 6,624,761 B2

3

Rejections

Claims 1-3, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Franaszek and under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Sebastian;
Claims 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kari and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Whiting and any one of Park or Seroussi.

DISCUSSION
As stated above, the Examiner rejects claims 1-3 and 7 as being
anticipated by any one of Franaszek or Sebastian and claims 17 and 21 as
being anticipated by Kari or as being obvious over Whiting and any one of
Park or Seroussi. Appellant “retracts any rebuttal arguments of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 17, and 21. . .”1 Since Appellant does
not dispute any of the Examiner’s rejections of the claims, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3 and 7 as being anticipated by Franaszek
and Sabastian and claims 17 and 21 as being anticipated by Kari and obvious
over Whiting and any one of Park or Seroussi.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 7, 17, and 21 is
affirmed.

1 Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.71 Retracting the
Arguments Made to Overcome the Claim Rejections and Thereby
Eliminating the Issues on Appeal, filed October 28, 2011, p. 6.
Appeal 2012-002367
Reexamination Control 95/000,464
Patent 6,624,761 B2

4

Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.

AFFIRMED

rvb

Patent Owner

STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Third Party Requester

MICHAEL A. MESSINA, ESQ.
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
600 13TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3096