Ex Parte Ali et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 21, 2010

11065664 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 21, 2010)

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.
11/065,664 02/24/2005 Riaz Ali 11702 2912
26890 7590 12/21/2010
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA CORPORATION
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
EXAMINER
BASEHOAR, ADAM L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2010 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
____________
Ex parte RIAZ ALI, DAVID O. SKURA, SIAMAK SAFARIAN,
RANDY K. MAY, FARIBA HAGHIGHI, and NAVEED KHALIQ
____________
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,6641
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Filed on February 24, 2005. This application claims priority from
provisional application 60/547,109, filed February 24, 2004. The real party
in interest is Teradata U.S., Inc. (Br. 2.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 4 through 7. (Br. 2.) Claims 1 through
3 have been cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and apparatus for building web-based
applications for international markets and, in particular, for translating
English language web pages to selected foreign languages. (Spec. 1, ll. 19-
21.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 4 further illustrates the invention as follows:
4. A method for translating the text of a plurality of web page files
constructed in a first language, said plurality of web page files stored
within a directory structure in a source location within a web server,
the method comprising the steps of:

maintaining a computerized database table containing a
plurality of first language text fragments, and a second language text
fragment corresponding to each one of said plurality of first language
text fragments;

successively examining said web page files to identify web
page files containing first language text fragments;

saving electronic copies of said web page files that do not
contain any first language text fragments to a target location within
said web server; and

for each one of said web page files that contains first language
text fragments, substituting a corresponding second language text
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

3
fragment for each one of said first language text fragments found in
said one of said web page files to create a translated version of said
one of said web page files, and saving said translated version of said
one of said web page files to said target location; and wherein:

said web pages saved to said target location are saved within a
directory structure corresponding to the directory structure said
plurality of web page files are stored within in said source location.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Murata US 5,987,402 Nov. 16, 1999
Prabhakar US 2003/0004703 A1 Jan. 2, 2003

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 4 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Prabhakar and Murata.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Murata fails to teach or suggest “saving
copies of web pages and translated versions of web pages to a target location
‘within a directory structure corresponding to the directory structure said
plurality of web page files are stored within in said source location,’ as
recited in independent claims 4 and 6.” (Br. 5.) Appellants argue that
Murata discloses a document retrieval and display system that includes a
translation function. (Id. at 7.) Appellants allege that Murata’s disclosed
system utilizes linked document stores located at various server sites to save
documents in various languages. (Id.) Appellants also contend that
Murata’s disclosed system maintains a common directory of storage
facilities at all server sites. (Id.) In particular, Appellants argue that
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

4
Murata’s disclosure of maintaining a common directory of storage facilities
at all server sites does not teach corresponding directory structures, such as a
first directory structure for storing web pages and a second corresponding
directory structure for storing both copies of web pages and translated
versions of such web pages. (Id. at 7-8.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Murata’s disclosure of a document
translation system that stores a document and a translated version of the
document in respective document storage facilities teaches saving copies of
web pages and translated versions of web pages to a target location. (Ans.
7.) The Examiner also finds the Murata’s disclosure of maintaining a
common directory at each storage facility teaches that the translation store is
within a directory structure. (Id.) Moreover, the Examiner finds that Murata
discloses that the translation store is capable of maintaining a common
directory at each linked document store. (Id. at 7-8.) Therefore, the
Examiner finds that Murata’s disclosure teaches that the translation store
corresponds to the directory structure of the plurality of web pages files that
are stored within the source location. (Id.)
Further, the Examiner finds that Murata teaches a plurality of
embodiments, some of which include the translation store and the linked
document stores being located: 1) separately; 2) together at each
corresponding link document store; or 3) within a common directory. (Id. at
8.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that “corresponding” source and target
directories, as recited in independent claims 4 and 6, can be broadly, but
reasonably construed as related directories. (Id.) In particular, the Examiner
finds that Murata discloses that the linked document stores and translation
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

5
stores are not only related, but that they are always linked and sometimes
encompass one another. (Id. at 8-9.) Therefore, the Examiner finds that
Murata teaches “corresponding to the directory structure,” as claimed. (Id.)
The Examiner also finds that “stored within a directory structure,” as recited
in independent claims 4 and 6, can be broadly, but reasonably construed as
any storage location within a system. (Id. at 9.) Accordingly, the Examiner
finds that even if Murata failed to teach the claimed directory structure, the
mere recitation of both a source and target location within related stores
teaches “stored within a directory structure,” as claimed. (Id.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Prabhakar and Murata renders independent claims 4 and 6
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether the proffered
combination teaches or fairly suggests “said web pages saved to said target
location are saved within a directory structure corresponding to the directory
structure said plurality of web page files are stored within in said source
locations,” as recited in independent claims 4 and 6.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Murata
1. Murata generally relates to a document retrieval and display
system and, in particular, to retrieving documents in different languages via
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

6
a communication network, translating the documents, and displaying the
retrieved documents. (Col. 1, ll. 9-13.)
2. Murata’s figure 1 depicts a client device (1), a control module
(2), a translations store (3), a translation module (4), a plurality of linked
document servers (5, 6, and 7), and respective linked document stores (8, 9,
and 10). (Col. 4, ll. 29-33.) Murata discloses that “[t]he translation store 3
stores translated documents produced by the translation module 4.” (Col. 5,
ll. 3-4.) Moreover, Murata discloses that the linked document stores (8, 9,
and 10) store documents in various languages. (Id. at ll. 16-20.)
3. In order to avoid needless duplication of translation, Murata
discloses maintaining a common directory of the storage facilities of the
linked document translation systems at all sites. (Col. 28, ll. 32-38.)

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 4 and 6
Independent claims 4 and 6 recite, in relevant part, “said web pages
saved to said target location are saved within a directory structure
corresponding to the directory structure said plurality of web page files are
stored within in said source locations.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Murata discloses a
document retrieval and display system that retrieves documents in different
languages via a communications network, translates the documents, and
displays such documents. (FF 1.) In particular, Murata discloses that the
document retrieval and display system includes both a translation storage
facility that stores translated documents, and multiple linked document
storage facilities that store documents in various languages. (FF 2.) Further,
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

7
in order to avoid needless duplication, Murata discloses maintaining a
common directory of the storage facilities at all sites within the document
retrieval and display system. (FF 3.)
We find that by maintaining a common directory at each of the sites,
Murata teaches or fairly suggests that the linked document storage facility
and the translation storage facility can each maintain a first directory and
second directory having similar structures, and are capable of saving
documents (i.e., documents in various languages and translated versions of
such documents) in a similar fashion. Therefore, we find that Murata’s
disclosure teaches or fairly suggests the disputed limitation. Extra features
in Murata do not obviate the relevant teachings.
Alternatively, we note that Appellants’ attempt to distinguish the
target and source locations over Murata based upon the nature of the
information saved in the claimed “directory structure” is unavailing.
Appellants cannot rely solely upon the content or type of information saved
or stored in the claimed “directory structure” to patentably distinguish
independent claims 4 and 6 over the prior art of record. The content or type
of such information is non-functional descriptive material, which is not
entitled to any patentable weight. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information content of a
memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident
in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI
2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274-75 (BPAI
2005) (informative), aff’d, slip op. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 2006) (Rule 36).
It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

8
concluding that the combination of Prabhakar and Murata renders
independent claims 4 and 6 unpatentable.
Claims 5 and 7
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to dependent claims 5 and 7. Therefore, we select independent
claims 4 and 6 as representative of the cited dependent claims.
Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection
dependent claims 5 and 7 for the reasons set forth in our discussion of
independent claims 4 and 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

V. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
4 through 7 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4 through 7 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-007825
Application 11/065,664

9

llw

JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA CORPORATION
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342