Ex Parte Chowdhury

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12102329 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
12/102,329 04/14/2008 Sandeep Chowdhury IN920060081US1 9957
75532 7590
LEE LAW, PLLC
IBM SVL IP
P.O. BOX 189
PITTSBORO, NC 27312
12/21/2016 EXAMINER
WONG, HUEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
docketing @ leelawpllc .com
docketing_archive @ leelawpllc .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDEEP CHOWDHURY
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—2, 4—6, 8—10, and 12—15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
generating, within a memory, an extensible
markup language (XML) position mapping structure of
a tree structure of an XML computer data file, where
the XML position mapping structure encodes each of
coded data elements of variable length represented as
nodes of the tree structure of the XML computer data
file, a node type of each node of the coded data elements
represented in the tree structure of the XML computer
data file, a node level number of each node of the coded
data elements represented in the tree structure of the
XML computer data file, and at least one of a depth-first
numeric node identifier (ID) and a breadth-first numeric
node identifier (ID) of each node of the coded data
elements represented in the tree structure of the XML
computer data file;
defining, within the XML position mapping
structure, starting and ending positions of each coded
data element within the XML computer data file by byte
positions where code length is specified by a defined
number of binary digits ', or
defining, within the XML position mapping
structure, the starting and ending positions of each
coded data element within the XML computer data file
2
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
by character positions where code length is specified by
a defined number of text characters', and
linking, in response to a query search on the tree
structure of the XML computer data file for a coded
data element of the XML computer data file, the query
search via the XML position mapping structure to the
starting and ending positions of the coded data element
of the XML computer data /lie.
2. The method of Claim 1, further comprising
parsing the XML computer data file to determine:
current code lengths of data element and attribute
names and values; and
file header length containing metadata',
where a data element or attribute is parsed using a
parsing program.
4. The method of Claim 1, where the numeric node
identifier (ID) for each node of the coded data elements
comprises the breadth-first numeric node identifier (ID)
and further comprising mapping each breadth-first
numeric node identifier (ID) to the depth-first numeric
node identifier (ID) within the generated XML position
mapping structure.
13. The method of Claim 1, where linking, in response
to the query search on the tree structure of the XML
computer data file for the coded data element of the
XML computer data file, the query search via the XML
position mapping structure to the starting and ending
positions of the coded data element of the XML
computer data file, comprises:
identifying, via the defined starting and ending
position of the coded data element within the XML
3
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
computer data file, a location of the coded data element
within the XML computer data file; and
performing the query search to retrieve the coded
data element from the XML computer data file without
loading the entire XML computer data file into the
memory.
Rejections on Appeal1
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—2, 4—6, 8—10, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Itani (US 2006/0075331 Al; Apr. 6, 2006),
Murthy (US 7,478,100 B2; Jan. 13, 2009), and Furusho
(US 7,627,604 B2; Dec. 1, 2009).2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 13—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Itani,
Murthy, Furusho, and Odagiri (US 2005/0187899 Al; Aug.
1 The Examiner also rejected claims 3,7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Itani, in view of Murthy, and further in view of
Furusho, but withdrew the rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. See Final
Act. 8; see also Ans. 3. Therefore, the rejection of claims 3, 7, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not before us. The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 5,
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the
written description requirement, but withdrew the rejection in the
Examiner’s Answer. See Final Act. 6—8; see also Ans. 3. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is not
before us. The Examiner also objected to the specification as failing to
provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See Final
Act. 6. This objection is also not before us.
2 The patentability of claims 5—6, 8, 9-10, and 12 is not separately argued
from that of claims 1, 2, and 4. See Appeal Br. 33, 51, and 55. Except for
our ultimate decision, claims 5—6, 8, 9-10, and 12 are not discussed further
herein.
4
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
25, 2005).3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 13—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Itani,
Murthy, Furusho, and Lindblad (US 2004/0060006 Al; Mar.
25, 2004).
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Figure 8 . . . represents the two distinct arrays in two distinct
memories .... A first text array is stored within the memory 21
that stores a “structured document 31” “not developed” and “in
text form,” and a second separate array is stored in the separate
and distinct memory 22 that stores the “document structure info
33” encoded with “positions of tags” in the separate text
structured document 31 (in the separate memory).
[The] structure information 33 in the separate memory 22 does
not even encode any information at all related to element
values, apparently because the element values are not usable
for tracing the text within the separate memory 21 that
separately stores the structured document in text form.
Additionally, the Itani reference discloses storage at the address
locations within the memory 22 of address pointers usable to
navigate among tags located in the other memory 21. ... As
such, the Itani reference does not store the actual tag name (the
coded data element) within the structure information 33, but
3 The patentability of claims 14—15 is not separately argued from that of
claim 13. See Appeal Br. 57. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 14—
15 are not discussed further herein.
5
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
instead stores relative position information (ADDRESS
pointers) and tag lengths within the structure information 33.
As such, the cited disclosure of the Itani reference is different
from and does not disclose Appellant’s claimed XML position
mapping structure that encodes “each of coded data elements”
of variable length represented as nodes of the tree structure of
the XML computer data file.
[T]he Itani reference stores only positional information and
length in the structure information 33 in the separate memory 22.
There is no physical storage space within the same sized array
33 to store the contents of the text document 31 because the
position information consumes the respective address spaces.
The Itani reference makes clear that the coded data elements
(e.g., “element name”) are not actually stored in the structure
information 33.
In view of this analysis, Appellant’s claimed XML position
mapping structure that encodes each of coded data elements of
variable length represented as nodes of the tree structure of the
XML computer data file is different from and is not disclosed
by the structure information 33 of the Itani reference. Further,
the separate structured document 31 is just a text form of the
original document, and does not store any position
information, and as such also does not disclose Appellant’s
claimed XML position mapping structure that encodes each of
coded data elements of variable length represented as nodes of
the tree structure of the XML computer data file.
The disclosed XPath queries of the Murthy reference cannot be
combined with the Itani reference to arrive at Appellant’s
claimed XML “position” mapping structure. ... As such,
regardless of any additional cited disclosures, the Murthy
reference and the Itani reference cannot be combined without
6
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
destruction of a fundamental principle of operation of at least
one of the two references.
A person of skill would not be motivated to modify or combine
additional disclosure of a node type and a node level number
from the Murthy reference with the Itani reference that operates,
as cited to utilize a structure information array 33 that is the same
size as the structured document 31. There does not appear to be
room within the structure information array 33 of the Itani
reference to store the additional identifiers without the
structure information array 33 becoming larger in size than the
structured document 31 for shorter tags (e.g., the first tag
“” of the text document stored in the memory 21).
[The] disclosed physical memory addresses of the Itani
reference cannot be combined with the disclosed depth-first
and breadth-first node identifiers of the Furusho reference
without destroying the fundamental principle of operation of
the memory addressing of the Itani reference.
Appeal Br. 36-42, Appellant’s emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s
emphasis added.
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Examiner’s Answer enters a new allegation that “Appellant
appears to place great emphasis on the allegation that memory 21
and memory 22 of Itani are ‘separate and distinct’....” The
Examiner’s Answer enters an additional new allegation and
citation that “Appellant’s allegation is based on ignoring Itani’s
explicitly teaching that ‘the first and second memories 21 and 22
may be formed by a single memory part....”
However, aside from this citation to paragraph [0047] of the Itani
7
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
reference being a completely new citation by the Patent Office,
this citation was clearly not relied upon by the Patent Office to
formulate the rejection of record. Further, this additional citation
does not improve the rejection because the citation to paragraph
[0047] of the Itani reference clearly discloses keeping the
respective memories 21 and 22 partitioned and separate - even
if formed and logically separated within a single memory part.
Appellant respectfully submits that the entirety of the Itani
reference as cited by and relied upon by the Patent Office
manages the separate and distinct memories 21 and 22 as
separate memories for purposes of the cited disclosure. The fact
that the memories 21 and 22 may be separate “logical”
memories instead of separate “physical” memories does not
change the disclosure of the Itani reference that has been
distinguished by Appellant in great detail above and within the
Appeal Brief
Reply Br. 4, Appellant’s citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
3. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The cited paragraph [0005] is from the Background section of
the Itani reference that describes technology that is purportedly
improved by the detailed description section of the Itani
reference. The Background section describes use of a document
object model (DOM) into which an “XML document is
developed.”
[The] cited DOM of the Background section is not utilized by
the Itani reference in operation, and the DOM is thereby not
combinable without destroying the undeveloped “text form ” of
the Itani reference that is processed by the disclosed structure
information (ADDRESSpointers and lengths). The ADDRESS
identifiers are not believed to be operable to identify locations
of tags if a DOM were instead used.
8
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
Further, while the Itani reference appears to disclose encoding
referential ADDRESS pointers (e.g., END, RIGHT, etc.), these
encodings appear to reference starting locations of other tags,
not the current tag with which the ADDRESS pointers are
associated. Additionally, while the Itani reference appears to
encode “length” values for tags, it does not disclose encoding
“end positions, ” where, as claimed by Appellant, code length is
specified by one of a defined number of binary digits and a
defined number of text characters. A length of a tag, as
disclosed by the Itani reference is different from Appellant’s
claimed starting and ending positions of each coded data
element within the XML computer data file. ... A length of a
tag would not operate to specify starting and ending positions of
a tag without additional computations outside of the structure of
the Itani reference, and the Itani reference as cited does not
disclose any suggestion or motivation to identify ending
positions of tags or element values.
Appeal Br. 46, Appellant’s emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added.
4. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 3, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[The] admitted mere disclosure of use of “relative” tags (e.g.,
left, right, etc.) within the disclosed structure information itself
of the Itani reference is fundamentally different from
Appellant’s claimed storing of both “starting and ending”
“positions” of each coded data element within a separate XML
computer data file. In contrast to Appellant’s claimed subject
matter, operations within the Itani reference must remain
cognizant of where they are within the structure information to
allow the disclosed navigation, which is not only extremely
inefficient relative to Appellant’s claimed position mapping
structure (that stores absolute position - starting and ending), but
which is also fundamentally different according to the plain
meaning of Appellant’s claim language.
9
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
Reply Br. 7—8, Appellant’s citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
5. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[The] Itani reference discloses tracing the structure information
33 to acquire contents from the separate memory 21 that stores
the document. Tracing of an array, as disclosed within the Itani
reference, is different from querying anything, and is different
from querying a tree structure, as claimed by Appellant. There
does not appear to be any actual disclosure within the Itani
reference as cited of a search query against the tree structure
of the document, as intended and as claimed by Appellant, and
there is no disclosure of linking the claimed query search via
the claimed XML position mapping structure to the starting
and ending positions of a coded data element of the XML
computer data file, as also intended and claimed.
In further contrast . . . the Itani reference operates by using
ADDRESS pointers to a document that is “not developed” and
that is in “text form” in a completely separate memory. There is
no actual disclosure of a developed tree structure developed
against which a query may be issued. In contrast, ADDRESS
pointers are usedfor “tracing” the tags in the flat text file array
(apparently, from one tag to the end tag, or from the tag to a
tag above or below, etc.).
Further... the Itani reference does not define each of starting
“and” ending positions (byte or character positions) within the
disclosed structure, and instead encodes only a “length. ” There
is no disclosure of any additional processing as cited to
determine any “ending” positions within the disclosed “not
developed” “text form ” flat text file array.
Appeal Br. 49, Appellant’s citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
6. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 5, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
10
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
[The] disclosed navigation within the structure information by
use of the “relative” positions (left, right, etc.) is fundamentally
different from Appellant’s claimed query search on the tree
structure of the XML computer data file (the file itself) for a
coded data element of the XML computer data file. As admitted,
the Itani reference does not disclose a query search on an XML
computer data file, but instead appears to use the relative
positions and navigates exclusively within the structure
information to access elements in the separate physical or logical
memory (memory content is different from a query on a file).
This cited disclosure of the Itani reference is fundamentally
different from Appellant’s claimed query search on the XML
computer data file (itself), and fails to disclose any “linking” as
required by Appellant’s claimed subject matter of Appellant’s
claimed query search on the XML computer data file (itself) via
the XML position mapping structure to the starting and ending
positions of the coded data element of the (separate) XML
computer data file.
Reply Br. 8, Appellant’s emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added.
7. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Claim 2 recites, among other things, method of claim 1, further
comprising parsing the XML computer data file to determine:
current code lengths of data element and attribute names and
values; and file header length containing metadata; where a data
element or attribute is parsed using a parsing program.
Appellant has reviewed the cited portions of the Itani reference
andfinds that the cited portions do not disclose any “file header
length containing metadata. ”
Without any concession whatsoever to the rejection of record,
Appellant performed a text search of the Itani reference for the
11
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
term “header” and found that the term does not appear to exist
within the Itani reference.
Appeal Br. 51—52, emphasis added.
8. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Claim 4 recites, among other things, method of claim 1, where
the numeric node identifier (ID) for each node of the coded data
elements comprises the breadth-first numeric node identifier (ID)
and further comprising mapping each breadth-first numeric node
identifier (ID) to the depth-first numeric node identifier (ID)
within the generated XML position mapping structure.
[Mere] disclosure of using depth-first or width-first numbering
of nodes within the Furusho reference does not fill the
evidentiary gaps nor render Appellant’s claimed subject matter
prima facie obvious. As discussed above, the Itani reference
discloses use of ADDRESS pointers to reference tags. The
disclosed ADDRESS pointers of the Itani reference are different
from node identifiers, and may not even be modified, as alleged.
If the disclosed ADDRESS pointers were modified to instead be
encoded as node identifiers, the fundamental principle within
the Itani reference of addressing tags within the memory using
the ADDRESS pointers would be destroyed because the
pointers would not reference the appropriate memory
locations, thereby rendering the Itani reference unsatisfactory
for at least this intended purpose.
Further, . . . because the Itani reference discloses that the
structure information 33 is the “same size” as the structured
document 31 in the separate memory, there is insufficient
storage space within the structure information 33 to store all of
the requisite information to arrive at Appellant’s claimed XML
position mapping structure, and several claim elements are not
factually disclosed as cited. In view of these several distinctions,
there is no suggestion or motivation to arrive at Appellant’s
claimed subject matter.
12
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
Appeal Br. 54—55, Appellant’s citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
9. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Claim 13 recites, among other things, method of claim 1, where
linking, in response to the query search on the tree structure of
the XML computer data file for the coded data element of the
XML computer data file, the query search via the XML position
mapping structure to the starting and ending positions of the
coded data element of the XML computer data file, comprises:
identifying, via the defined starting and ending position of the
coded data element within the XML computer data file, a
location of the coded data element within the XML computer
data file; and performing the query search to retrieve the coded
data element from the XML computer data file without loading
the entire XML computer data file into the memory.
The Itani reference as cited does not disclose or suggest
encoding ending positions, and the ADDRESS pointers
associated with tags actually reference other tags (e.g., END,
ABOVE, BELOW, etc.).
As such, there is no evidentiary disclosure within the Itani
reference as alleged of Appellant’s claimed identifying, via the
defined starting and ending position of the coded data element
within the XML computer data file, a location of the coded data
element within the XML computer data file.
As a further [consequence], there is no disclosure within the
Itani reference as alleged of a “location,” as required by
Appellant’s claims, that may be identified for performing the
query search to retrieve the coded data element from the XML
computer data file without loading the entire XML computer
data file into the memory.
13
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
[The] Odagiri reference discloses loading the entire document
into the memory 12. As a consequence, the cited disclosure of
the Odagiri reference is different from and does not disclose
performing any processing “without loading the entire XML
computer data file into the memory ” as claimed by Appellant.
The Odagiri reference directly discloses the structured document
in its entirety being within (loaded into) the memory 12.
[The] Lindblad reference also discloses accepting entire XML
documents, and populating XML subtrees into a database (a
memory). However, this disclosure is different from and does
not disclose performing Appellant’s claimed query search on a
tree structure of the XML computer data file to retrieve the
coded data element from the XML computer data file without
loading the entire XML computer data file into the memory.
Any attempt to combine the Itani reference with another
reference to perform Appellant’s claimed search query (that itself
has not been identified by evidentiary citations) without loading
the entire disclosed structured document 31 into the memory 21
would prevent the disclosed tracing of the tags of the entire
document to be performed. Such a modification would once
again destroy a fundamental principle of operation of the Itani
reference by preventing tracing of the tags of the entire
structured document 31 because the entire structured
document 31 would not be in the memory 21, which would
thereby render the Itani reference unsatisfactory for at least
this intended purpose.
Appeal Br. 57—59, Appellant’s citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
10. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 9, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
14
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
The Examiner’s Answer further alleges and admits with respect
to disclosure within the Odagiri reference that the “server 1
acquires in advance position information for specific tags in the
structured document 10, and holds this information in a position
information holding portion (memory) 12.” The Examiner's
Answer additionally alleges that “in this way, only a portion is
extracted from the original XML document 10
Appellant appears to have inadvertently misinterpreted the
intended citations and intended interpretation by the Patent
Office, and apologizes for any confusion that may result in the
arguments of the Appeal Brief. However, Appellant notes the
position of the Patent Office within the Examiner’s Answer and
reliance upon extraction of parts of an XML document within the
Odagiri reference.
This reliance contradicts and prevents any possible combination
with the Itani reference. Specifically, because the Itani
reference discloses storing the entire XML structured
document in the separate logical or physical memory in “not
developed” “text form” separate from the structure
information, a combination of the Itani reference with any
reference that does not also store the entire document in
memory is not possible without changing this fundamental
principle of operation of the Itani reference, which would
render the primary Itani reference inoperative and
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such, based upon the
position taken by the Patent Office in the Examiner’s Answer,
the Odagiri reference may not be combined with the Itani
reference to form an obviousness rejection, and the Odagiri
reference must be withdrawn as a cited reference against
patentability.
Reply Br. 8—9, Appellant’s citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
15
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 2 as being obvious?
3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 4 as being obvious?
4. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 13 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
As to Appellant’s above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellant essentially argues that Itani does not teach or
suggest the claimed “extensible markup language (XML) position mapping
structure of a tree structure of an XML computer data file, where the XML
position mapping structure encodes each of coded data elements of variable
length represented as nodes of the tree structure of the XML computer file,”
because Itani teaches that a structured document (i.e., an XML document)
and document structure information are stored in two separate and distinct
memories (i.e., a first memory and a second memory). See Appeal Br. 36.
However, we agree with the Examiner that Itani explicitly teaches that the
first and second memories may be formed by a single memory part. See
Ans. 5 (citing Itani 147). Thus, the two arrays stored within the first and
second memories, collectively, store the coded data elements of the tree
structure of the XML document and the position information of the
document structure information. Therefore, we agree that Itani’s array
structure (including both the XML document and document structure
information) teaches the claimed “extensible markup language (XML)
position mapping structure of a tree structure of an XML computer data file,
where the XML position mapping structure encodes each of coded data
16
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
elements of variable length represented as nodes of the tree structure of the
XML computer file.” See Final Act. 9; see also Itani | 54.
Appellant also essentially argues that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not be motivated to combine Itani with either Murthy or Furusho
because either combination would destroy a fundamental principle of
operation of Itani. See Appeal Br. 40-42. We disagree, as Appellant has not
shown that either the combination of Itani and Murthy or the combination of
Itani and Furusho would destroy a fundamental principle of operation of
Itani.
Regarding the combination of Itani and Murthy, the Examiner’s
modification of Itani is storing a node type and node level number, as taught
by Murthy, within the document structure information taught by Itani. See
Final Act. 11. Appellant fails to show why storing additional information
would destroy a fundamental principle of operation of Itani. Although
Appellant argues that “[t]here does not appear to be room within the
structure information array ... to store the additional [information] without
the structure information array . . . becoming larger in size than the
structured document” (Appeal Br. 41), Appellant has failed to show that
Itani requires that the array containing the document structure information
and the array containing the structured document must be the same size.
Regarding the combination of Itani and Furusho, the Examiner’s
modification of Itani is storing a numeric node identifier that is at least one
of a depth-first numeric node identifier and a breadth-first numeric node
identifier of each node of the coded data elements represented in the XML
document, as taught by Furusho, within the document structure information
taught by Itani. See Final Act. 12. Appellant fails to show why storing
17
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
additional information would destroy a fundamental principle of operation of
Itani. Although Appellant argues “the disclosed physical memory addresses
of [Itani] cannot be combined with the disclosed depth-first and breadth-first
node identifiers of Furusho” because “[alteration of [the physical memory
address] to instead be a [depth-first or breadth-first] node identifier ’2’
would change the addressing scheme that forms a fundamental principle of
operation” (Appeal Br. 42), the Examiner’s modification does not change
Itani’s position identification scheme by replacing a position with a node
identifier. Instead, the Examiner’s modification stores a numeric node
identifier that is at least one of a depth-first numeric node identifier and a
breadth-first numeric node identifier, as taught by Furusho, in addition to the
position information taught by Itani.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 3 and 4, we are also not
persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant essentially argues that Itani does
not teach or suggest the claimed “starting and ending positions of each
coded data element within the XML computer data file by byte positions . . .
or ... by character positions,” because: (a) Itani does not teaching utilizing
a DOM processor to acquire starting and ending positions of coded data
elements of the XML document; (b) Itani teaches address pointers that
reference starting positions of other tags of the XML document rather than
the current tag with which the pointer is associated; and (c) Itani teaches a
length of a tag, where the length is different from the claimed “starting and
ending positions of each coded data element within the XML computer data
file.” See Appeal Br. 46. We do not find any of these arguments persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that Itani teaches acquiring content of the XML
document via a DOM processor, and further teaches the document structure
18
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
information stores a position and length of each tag in the XML document.
See Final Act. 9—10 (citing Itani || 5, 9, 54). By teaching the storage of a
position (i.e., starting position) and length of each tag (i.e., coded data
element), Itani also teaches or suggests the document structure information
storing an ending position of each tag, since the ending position of a tag can
be determined based on the starting position and the length of the tag.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 5 and 6, we are also not
persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant essentially argues that: (a) Itani
fails to teach a tree structure and (b) Itani teaches tracing the document
structure information to acquire contents of the XML document, which is
different from querying a tree structure. See Appeal Br. 49. We disagree
with Appellant that Itani fails to teach a tree structure, and, instead, agree
with the Examiner that Itani teaches a tree structure of an XML document.
See Final Act. 9 (citing Itani || 10-12). Further, we agree with the
Examiner that Itani teaches using position information of the structured
document information to access, at a high-speed, the tree structure of the
XML document and search an element name (i.e., tag name) at high speed.
Final Act. 10 (citing Itani 149). Appellant fails to persuasively distinguish
the claimed “linking” from Itani’s high-speed search of the tree structure of
the XML document using the position information of the structured
document information.
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments regarding claim 1,
and we do not find them persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
As to Appellant’s above contention 7, we agree with Appellant. On
this record, the Examiner has not shown that Itani teaches or suggests
19
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
parsing the XML document to determine a file header length containing
metadata, or that any of the other cited references cure Itani’s deficiency.
See, e.g., Final Act. 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 2.
As to Appellant’s above contention 8, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that Furusho teaches both a
breadth-first numeric node identifier and a depth-first numeric node
identifier, and also teaches mapping a breadth-first numeric node identifier
to a depth-first numeric node identifier. See Final Act. 15 (citing Furusho
col. 6,11. 3—13; col. 11,11. 1—21). Regarding Appellant’s argument that
combining Itani and Furusho would destroy a fundamental principle of
operation of Itani, we do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons
previously described with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 4.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 9 and 10, we are also not
persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that Itani
teaches using position information of the structured document information to
search an element (i.e., tag) of the XML document. Final Act. 16, 18 (citing
Itani 149). We further agree with the Examiner that Odagiri teaches using
position information to extract a portion of an XML document into a
memory, and thus teaches “without loading the entire XML computer data
file into the memory.” See Final Act. 17 (citing Odagiri || 57—58); see also
Ans. 9 (citing Odagiri || 57—58). We also agree with the Examiner that
Lindblad teaches populating a portion of an accepted XML document into an
XML subtree database, and thus also teaches “without loading the entire
XML computer data file into the memory.” See Final Act. 18 (citing
20
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
Lindblad 42, 53); see also Ans. 10 (citing Lindblad Tflf 42, 53). Regarding
Appellant’s argument that combining Itani and either Odagiri or Lindblad
would destroy a fundamental principle of operation of Itani (see Appeal
Br. 59), we do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant has not shown
that modifying Itani so that the structured document information traces a
portion of the XML document loaded into the memory, rather than the entire
XML document, would cause Itani’s structured document processing
apparatus to stop functioning, or to otherwise destroy a fundamental
principle of operation. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4—5, 8—9, and
12—15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2, 6, and 10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1, 4—5, 8—9, and 12—15 are not patentable.
(4) On this record, claims 2, 6, and 10 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
21
Appeal 2016-001976
Application 12/102,329
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—5, 8—9, and 12—15
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 6, and 10 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
22