Ex Parte BOYCE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

14334055 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/334,055 07/17/2014
36630 7590 06/20/2018
IP-MEX Inc.
Unit D2 (Second Floor)
150 Terence Matthews Crescent
KANATA, ON K2MIX4
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KEVIN GERARD BOYCE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TB-002-US-CON9 3151
EXAMINER
PEACH, POLINA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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):
vdonnelly@ip-mex.com
admin@ip-mex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN GERARD BOYCE
Appeal2017-009620
Application 14/334,055 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and SHARON PENICK
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Trend Micro Incorporated as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009620
Application 14/334,055
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "[a] method for
detecting and locating occurrence in a data stream of any complex string
belonging to a predefined complex dictionary." Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system for detecting presence of complex strings in a
data stream, the system comprising:
a memory device storing a dictionary containing a
plurality of complex strings, each complex string comprising at
least one ambiguous string and at least one coherent string,
wherein a coherent string comprises a sequence of characters
uniquely defined in an alphabet and an ambiguous string
comprises characters defined according to a character-class
association;
at least one primary processor configured to locate
sequential portions of said data stream that are identical to
successive coherent strings of a candidate complex string;
and
at least one secondary processor configured to ascertain
congruence of parts of said data stream adjacent to said
sequential portions with corresponding ambiguous strings of said
candidate complex string adjacent to said successive coherent
strings.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Wyschogrod (US 2003/0051043 Al; published Mar. 13,
2003) Williams, Jr. (US 7,689,530 Bl, issued Mar. 30, 2010) and Ninan (US
2008/0071781, Al, issued Mar. 20, 2008).
2
Appeal2017-009620
Application 14/334,055
2. Claims 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Jr., and Kapoor (US 2007 /0192863 Al,
published Aug. 16, 2007).
3. Claims 1-20 stand rejected on grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.
8,423,572. Final Act. 3-5.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness Rejection over Wyschogrod, Williams, Jr., and Ninan
Independent claims 1, 2, and 14 each recite "a dictionary containing a
plurality of complex strings." The Examiner finds Wyschogrod's "'alphabet
lookup table' is a dictionary and regular expression is a complex string."
Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains that "a lookup table that includes codes
and regular expressions meets the above definition and provides the same
functions as the claimed dictionary." Ans. 6.
Appellant argues "the [ claimed] dictionary of complex strings bears
no resemblance whatsoever to the alphabet lookup tables of the Wyschogrod
reference. This is understood because Wyschogrod addresses a different
issue applying an entirely different approach based on multiple lookup
tables." App. Br. 22.
We agree with Appellant that Wyschogrod's alphabet lookup table
does not teach or suggest "a dictionary containing a plurality of complex
strings." Wyschogrod describes the lookup table as "associat[ing] a class
code to each character in the relevant alphabet." Wyschogrod ,r 17
( emphasis added); see also id. ,r 36 ("The alphabet lookup table includes
codes associated with each character in an applicable alphabet of
characters."). Therefore, Wyschogrod's alphabet lookup table contains
3
Appeal2017-009620
Application 14/334,055
entries for single characters for a state of a generated state machine rather
than containing regular expressions as the Examiner finds. The regular
expressions are contained in Wyschogrod's memory 204, not in the alphabet
lookup table. Id. ,r 35 ("A second memory 204 includes the initial one or
more regular expressions of interest.") The Examiner, however, has not
made a finding that memory 204 teaches or suggests the claimed dictionary.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 over Wyschogrod and Williams, Jr.
Obviousness Rejection over Williams, Jr. and Kapoor
Appellant does not present arguments regarding the Examiner's
alternative rejection of claims 2, 6, and 7 over Williams, Jr. and Kapoor in
their Appeal Brief. Appellant addresses this rejection only in its Reply
Brief, after the Examiner highlighted the absence of any such arguments in
the Appeal Brief. These arguments are waived. See 37 CPR§ 4I.41(b)(2)
(2011) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the
appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's
answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be
considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
cause is shown."); Exparte Borden, 93 USPQ 2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's
rejections, but were not.").
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
2, 6, and 7.
4
Appeal2017-009620
Application 14/334,055
Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 on grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.
8,423,572. Appellant does not present any arguments against this rejection,
thus waiving any arguments with respect thereto. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the Examiner's double patenting rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Wyschogrod, Williams, Jr., and Ninan is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Williams, Jr. and Kapoor is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 on grounds of double
patenting is affirmed.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5