Ex Parte BryanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612180348 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/180,348 07/25/2008 B. David Bryan 063170.9098 9853 106095 7590 Baker Botts LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER TSEGAYE, SABA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte B. DAVID BRYAN1 Appeal 2015-004455 Application 12/180,348 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant identifies Computer Associates Think, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-004455 Application 12/180,348 Invention Appellant discloses “a system and method for filtering and alteration of digital data packets.” Spec. 3,11. 2—3. Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below with emphasis on disputed subject matter. 1. A method, comprising: receiving data from a data source; converting the data using a user-defined metadata schema, in approximately real time, into digital data packets, wherein the data packets have a common format, the common format including elements defined by a markup language; filtering the data packets using the user-defined metadata schema, the user-defined metadata schema not contained within the received data; and storing the filtered data packets into the database based at least in part on the metadata schema; wherein the metadata schema defines the elements of the common format of the data packets according to the markup language, the types of data that the user does not wish to receive, one or more tables, one or more fields, and a plurality of relationships between the tables and fields of a database, and a mapping of a plurality of properties of the filtered data packets to the tables and fields of the database. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weissman 2 Appeal 2015-004455 Application 12/180,348 (US 6,212,524 Bl; April 3, 2001), Tse (US 6,895,471 Bl; May 17, 2005), Han (US 2006/0101329 Al; May 11, 2006), Pendakur (US 2003/0135857 Al; July 17, 2003), and Das (US 2009/0030883 Al; Jan. 29, 2009). Final Act. 2-7 (Jan. 30, 2014). The Examiner rejects claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weissman, Tse, Han, Pendakur, Das, and Hamery (US 7,116,719 B2; Oct. 3, 2006). Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weissman, Tse, Han, Pendakur, Das, and Ford (US 2001/0001159 Al; May 10,2001). Final Act. 8. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weissman, Tse, Han, Pendakur, Das, and Begeja (US 2009/0234862 Al; Sept. 17, 2009). Final Act. 8-9. ISSUES 1. Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding the applied prior art suggests “filtering the data packets using the user-defined metadata schema,” as recited by independent claim 1? 2. Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding the applied prior art further suggests “filtering the data packets comprises modifying one or more of the data packets,” as recited by dependent claim 3? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5—9, 12—16, and 19—24 (First Issue) In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Weissman’s semantic definitions constitute a metadata schema that allows fields of interest to be indicated for filtering. Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Weissman col. 9,11. 24—28); 3 Appeal 2015-004455 Application 12/180,348 see also Ans. 2. The Examiner does not rely on Weissman to teach or suggest a user-defined metadata schema that filters data packets. Rather, the Examiner finds that Tse’s translation of raw data teaches or suggests the claimed data packets. Final Act. 3 (citing Tse col. 1,11. 14—52, col. 2,11. 37— 45). Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Weissman and Tse teaches or suggests fdtering the data packets using a metadata schema. However, the Examiner relies on Pendakur’s filtering of content to be cached, based on user preferences, in combination with Weissman and Tse, to teach or suggest fdtering the data packets using the user-defined metadata schema. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Pendakur || 43, 47, 74—76, Figs. 16, 17). Appellant argues the applied prior art does not teach or suggest claim 1 ’s “filtering the data packets using the user-defined metadata schema.” See, e.g., Br. 18 (“[E]ach reference is silent on using a schema to perform filtering, much less filtering data packets using a metadata schema.”). In particular, Appellant argues that “ Weissman is no more than a query run on a data mart” rather than a filter for data packets (Br. 16), that “Tse is silent on using any schema to filter the data” (id. at 17), and that Pendakur’s descriptive information for selectively caching received content is not a schema (id. at 14—15). Appellant’s arguments are unresponsive to the Examiner’s findings and therefore are unpersuasive. Specifically, Appellant attacks Weissman, Tse, and Pendakur individually for allegedly failing to teach or suggest recitations that the Examiner does not rely on the respective references to teach or suggest. The Examiner relies on Tse and Pendakur, not Weissman, to teach or suggest data packets and a filter being user defined. Final Act. 4 Appeal 2015-004455 Application 12/180,348 3—5. The Examiner relies on Weissman, not Tse and Pendakur, to teach or suggest filtering using a metadata schema. Id. at 3. Appellant’s arguments do not address these findings and therefore do not show error in the Examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Weissman, Tse, and Pendakur teaches or suggests “filtering the data packets using the user-defined metadata schema,” as recited by independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 5—9, 12—16, and 19—24, which Appellant does not argue separately. Br. 21. Dependent Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 (Second Issue) Appellant argues that the “modifying” feature of dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, and their respectively depending claims 4, 11, and 18, distinguishes over Pendakur’s cited caching of filtered content. See infra. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and particularly adds: “The method of Claim 1, wherein filtering the data packets comprises modifying one or more of the data packets.” Claims 10 and 17 recite similar modifying. Appellant contends that Pendakur’s caching of filtered content, as described by Pendakur’s cited paragraph 42, “refers to the caching or routing of television content that is of interest to the user . . . [b]ut the television content, or data packets, are not modified[.]” Br. 21. The Examiner responds only that “the broad claim recitation of ‘filtering the data packets comprises modifying one or more of the data packets’ is met by Pendakur’s disclosure of modifying content based on user preference described in paragraph [0042].” Ans. 19. 5 Appeal 2015-004455 Application 12/180,348 Appellant’s argument is persuasive because, although Pendakur’s received content is modified by filtering of included portions, the Examiner has not shown that included data packets would themselves be modified. In other words, the Examiner has only shown that the received content is modified by removal of some included content; not that any included data packets would themselves be altered so as to teach or suggest “modifying packets” (claims 3, 10, and 17). Accordingly, the rejections of claims 3,4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are not sustained. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—9, 12—16, and 19—24. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3,4, 10, 11, 17, and 18. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation