Ex Parte Altman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2014

10914481 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERALD ALTMAN
____________

Appeal 2011-0094881
Application 10/914,481
Technology Center 2167
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ULRIKE
W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-5, 9, 19, 23-25,
29-41, 43-46, 50-54, and 56-62 (App. Br. 4). Examiner entered rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2011-012952, Application No.
11/513,846 (see generally Reply Br. 2).
2 The Real Party in Interest is New Grounds LLC (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-009488
Application 10/914,481
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a document management system, process
for managing electronic documents, and a computer-readable medium.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced in the Claims Appendix of
Appellants’ Brief.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 19, 24, 30, 31, 39, 43, 51, 54, and 57-62 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green3
and Sekido.4
Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Freeman.5
Claims 23, 33, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and
Bennett.6
Claims 25, 35-37, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, Bennett, and Freeman.
Claims 29, 50, 52, 53, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Irons.7
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Strout.8
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Green, Sekido, Strout, and Bennett.

3 Green et al., US 5,794,242, Aug. 11, 1998.
4 Sekido, US 6,311,193 B1, Oct. 30, 2001.
5 Freeman et al., US 2005/0125714 A1, Jun. 9, 2005.
6 Bennett et al., US 5,561,793, Oct. 1, 1996.
7 Irons, US 6,192,165 B1, Feb. 20, 2001.
8 Strout et al., US 4,001,883, Jan. 4, 1977.
Appeal 2011-009488
Application 10/914,481
3
ISSUE
Does the combination of prior art relied upon by Examiner suggest,
inter alia, a logical block address that includes information specifying a date
and time of day or a point in time?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Examiner finds that Green suggests the invention of, inter alia,
Appellant’s claim 1 with the exception of a “logical block address [that]
includ[es] information specifying a date and time of day that [a] given
electronic document was received by the input subsystem” and relies on
Sekido to make up for this deficiency (Ans. 4-6).
FF 2. Sekido’s Figure 11 is reproduced below:

Sekido’s “FIG. 11 illustrates a conversion map from logical addresses to
physical addresses” (Sekido, col. 4, ll. 6-7; Ans. 41).
FF 3. Sekido discloses that
As shown in FIG. 11, the conversion map holds stripe numbers
ST# in which the blocks for the individual logical addresses are
stored, block numbers BLK# in the stripes, and their time
stamps TS# in table form. If a logical address is given, the
actual physical address is found easily from ST# and BLK# by
referring to the table.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 9-16 (emphasis added); see generally Ans. 41.)
FF 4. While Sekido does suggest “logical address tag[s]” that contain a
time stamp for the purpose of validating blocks, Sekido makes clear that “the
logical address tags” are different than “logical addresses,” which are
Appeal 2011-009488
Application 10/914,481
4
associated with Sekido’s conversion map (see id. at col. 7, ll. 51-63 and col.
8, ll. 1-6).
FF 5. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido, with or
without Bennett, fails to suggest email records, image records, or computer
generated records and relies on Freeman to make up for these deficiencies in
the combination of Green and Sekido, with or without Bennett (Ans. 22-23
and 29-32).
FF 6. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido, with or
without Strout, fails to suggest a relational database within the scope of
Appellant’s claimed invention and relies on Bennett to make up for this
deficiency in the combination of Green and Sekido, with or without Strout
(id. at 24-28 and 39-40).
FF 7. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido fails to
suggest the receipt of one or more scanned or imaged documents, within the
scope of Appellant’s claimed invention and relies on Irons to make up for
this deficiency in the combination of Green and Sekido (id. at 33-37).
FF 8. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido fails to
suggest a physical block locations within the scope of Appellant’s claimed
invention and relies on Strout to make up for this deficiency in the
combination of Green and Sekido (id. at 37-39).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Green and Sekido, Examiner concludes
that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it would have been prima
facie obvious to “modif[y] the system of Green with the date and time
specification from Sekido, in order to enable flexible data sheltering that
allows the update of snapshots” (Ans. 6). In this regard, Examiner
emphasizes that Sekido’s “conversion map clearly discloses the requisite
Appeal 2011-009488
Application 10/914,481
5
‘logical block address including information specifying a date and time of
day’” (id. at 41). We are not persuaded.
As Appellants explains, “FIG. 11 of Sekido represents explicit
evidence that its ‘time stamps’ are distinct form the ‘logical address’” (App.
Br. 15-16 (emphasis removed); Reply Br. 3 (“Sekido’s ‘logical block
addresses contain . . . stripe numbers, block numbers, and time stamps’”
(alteration original)); FF 2-3). “Sekido’s ‘logical address’ does not teach or
suggest a ‘logical block address [that] includes information specifying a date
and time of day,” or point in time as required by Appellant’s claimed
invention (id. at 16 (emphasis removed, alteration original); Reply Br. 3-4).
At best, Sekido suggests “logical address tag[s]” containing a time stamp for
the purpose of validating blocks, but Sekido makes clear that “the logical
address tags” are different than “logical addresses,” which are associated
with Sekido’s conversion map (FF 4).
In sum, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this
record to support a conclusion that the combination of Green and Sekido
suggest a logical block address that includes information specifying a date
and time of day or a point in time as is required by Appellant’s claimed
invention. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Examiner failed to establish that any of Freeman, Bennett, Irons, or
Strout, alone or in combination make up for the foregoing deficiencies in the
combination of Green and Sekido (see FF 5-8).

Appeal 2011-009488
Application 10/914,481
6
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 19, 24, 30, 31, 39, 43, 51, 54, and
57-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Green and Sekido is reversed.
The rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Freeman is reversed.
The rejection of claims 23, 33, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and
Bennett is reversed.
The rejection of claims 25, 35-37, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, Bennett, and Freeman
is reversed.
The rejection of claims 29, 50, 52, 53, and 56 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Irons is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Strout is reversed.
The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Green, Sekido, Strout, and Bennett is reversed.

REVERSED
lp