Ex Parte Daniels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2016

12944105 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/944,105 11/11/2010
37945 7590 06/09/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nigel Daniels
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.
GB920090066US 1 5081
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED HAROON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIGEL DANIELS and DOINA L. KLINGER
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a "technique for maintaining
consistency between a data object and references to the object in a file"
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, reproduced below, are
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for maintaining consistency between a data
object and references in a file referring to the data object, the
method comprising the steps of:
receiving an indication that the data object has changed;
identifying a change made to the data object; and
analyzing the file comprising one or more references
referring to the data object to identify those of the references that
are inconsistent with the change made to the data object.
2. A method according to claim 1 further comprising the
steps of:
comparing a first set of metadata associated with the data
object prior to the change with a second set of metadata
associated with the data object after the change;
responsive to determining one or more differences
between the first and second sets of metadata, searching the file
for one or more occurrences of a first metadata element that
differs from the second set of metadata; and
identifying any matches to the first metadata element in
the file, the matches comprising the references referring to the
data object that are inconsistent with the change made to the data
object.
2
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Craig E. Wills et al., N for the Price of
1: Bundling Web Objects for More Efficient Content Delivery, 257-64
(2001) ("Wills").
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Wills and Papachristou (US 8,001,136 Bl; iss.
Aug. 16, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 20--22
With respect to claim 1, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in
finding Wills discloses analyzing a file comprising one or more references
referring to a data object for identifying the references that are inconsistent
with a change made to the data object (App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-5).
According to Appellants, Wills "identifies deltas/ changes, and reconstructs a
file using such deltas/ changes without any type of 'reference'/' change'
(made to a data object) inconsistency determination being made" (App. Br.
7).
The Examiner finds, however, Wills discloses a bundle, which is a file
comprising references referring to data objects of a Web page (Final Act. 4,
16 (citing Wills p. 258, col. 2; p. 259, cols. 1-2); Ans. 3--4). The Examiner
finds Wills' bundle/file comprises references referring to objects as claimed
because "[e]ach object in the bundle is represented by its URL, metadata
1 A rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Final Act.
2-3) was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3).
3
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
including HTTP headers, and the actual contents of the object" (Ans. 3
(citing Wills p. 258, col. 1-2)). Further, Wills' differencing algorithm
computes a delta difference between old and new bundle versions "on an
object-by-object basis" (Ans. 5 (citing Wills p. 259, col. 2)) to "determin[e]
where within the old file (i.e., the inconsistencies within the old file) the
changes of the delta need to be applied so that the old bundle file can be
updated" (Ans. 4--5 (citing Wills p. 259, col. 2-p. 260, col. 1)). Thus, Wills
teaches analyzing the file comprising the references referring to objects for
identifying old objects' references that are inconsistent with modified
objects' changes (Ans. 4--5).
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and the cited portions of
Wills, and concur with the Examiner's findings that Wills teaches analyzing
to identify references in the file that are inconsistent with the change made to
the object, as claimed. Wills' differencing algorithm computes object-by-
object differences between old and modified objects to identify the file's
old/inconsistent references among the "URL, relevant metadata (HTTP
headers) and contents" representing the object (see Wills p. 258, col. 2; p.
259, col. 2). Appellants' arguments in the Briefs do not persuasively rebut
the Examiner's reasonable findings by identifying specific errors.
Appellants' arguments also do not address the Examiner's specific finding
that Wills identifies inconsistent object references among the URL,
metadata/HTTP headers, and contents representing the object (Ans. 3, 4).
We further note Appellants' argument that Wills "identif[ ies] changes
between different data objects" in contrast to Appellants' method-in which
"particular 'references' referring to a particular 'data object' that are
inconsistent with a 'change' made to such particular 'data object"' (App.
4
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
Br. 9}-is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites
identifying a change to a data object and analyzing a file, referring to the
data object, to identify references inconsistent with the change. However,
claim 1 does not preclude identifying changes between old and modified
data objects.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 11 argued for the same reasons as claim 1
(App. Br. 6). We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 10, 13,
15, and 20-22, which Appellants do not separately argue (App. Br. 6).
Claims 2, 6--8, 12, and 16--18
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants acknowledge Wills
identifies differences between old and new bundle versions, but argue the
Examiner erred in finding Wills teaches identifying any matches in the file
to a first metadata element that differs from the second set of metadata, as
claimed (App. Br. 10). Wills does not disclose "identifying 'references' to
the bundles that are 'inconsistent' with a 'change' made to the bundle (per
Claim 1 ), as well as ... identifying 'matches' that comprise such
'references"' (id.). Rather, Wills merely "describes comparing two bundles
to identify differences between such bundles" (id.). That is, "Wills 'data
objects' themselves are compared with one another (Wills page 259-Delta
Encoding of Bundles)" (Reply Br. 5). We agree. Further, we also agree
with Appellants that "the Examiner's reliance on what is known to an
ordinary artisan (per page 7, lines 14-18 of the Examiner Answer) may be a
legitimate reason for rejecting a claim under 35 [U.S.C. §] 103, but is not
proper when rejecting a claim under 35 [U.S.C. §] 102" (id.).
5
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of claim 2, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of claim 2. Claim 12 recites the aforementioned contested "identifying"
limitation using commensurate language. Therefore, we also do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 for the same reasons discussed above
regarding claim 2. Because we have reversed the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2 and 12, we also reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 6-8 and
16-18, dependent therefrom.
Claims 4 and 14
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants contend Wills does not
disclose the claimed "scope" but only teaches "the actual 'change' to the
data object itself' (App. Br. 11 ).
The Examiner finds Wills' bundle-aware differencing algorithm
operates on a scope as claimed (Ans. 8-9). In particular, Wills' algorithm
identifies inconsistent references by computing differences "on an object-by-
object basis" in an area or scope of the bundle where "inconsistent (old)
objects of (or relative to) the old version ... have been deleted or modified''
(Ans. 8 (citing Wills p. 259, col. 2)). Wills further limits the identification
of inconsistent references to this scope, excluding other bundle areas
representing "[u]nchanged/consistent objects" (Ans. 9). We agree.
Wills' bundle area, checked for consistency between references, is
commensurate with the term "scope" as claimed and with the broad
description of "scope" in Appellants' Specification (Ans. 8). 2 Appellants
2 Appellants' Specification provides "[t]he scope data 207 is the area within
the instance file 107 within which the consistency checker 202 checks for
references 110 that may have become inconsistent with an updated object
6
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's specific findings that Wills'
bundle area checked for consistency is a scope for identifying references as
claimed; rather Appellants' arguments restate that Wills' delta does not
teach such a scope (Reply Br. 5---6).
Appellants further contend the Examiner did not establish "a
teaching/suggestion with respect to the claimed feature of 'the scope being
defined relative to the instance of the data object"' (App. Br. 11).
Appellants' arguments, however, do not address the Examiner's finding that
Wills identifies inconsistent references within the scope of "the objects of
the old version of the bundle (i.e., relative to the instance of the data
object)" (Ans. 8 (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 4 and dependent claim 14 argued together (App. Br. 10-
11).
Claim 23
With respect to dependent claim 23, the Examiner finds Wills inserts
objects into a bundle and, responsive to the insertion, saves the bundle as
home.bndl after the name of the page (home.html) that originated the objects
(Ans. 10-11 (citing Wills p. 258, col. 2)). Thus, Wills teaches the claimed
storing source data identifying the source object because the saved bundle
name home.bndl is source data identifying source objects by "the location of
the server html page where the source objects originate from" (Ans. 11 ).
instance 109 ... the scope data defines ... the target area for the
consistency checker ... possible scopes include ... the whole document"
(Spec. i-f 23 (emphasis added)).
7
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
Appellants contend Wills' description of bundle construction does not
teach storing source data identifying the source object as recited in claim 23,
because the file identifier of home.bndl does not provide identification data
with respect to a source object that the encapsulated/data object was
instantiated from as required in claim 22 (from which claim 23 depends)
(App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 7-8). We do not agree.
Wills' page location information teaches the claimed data identifying
a source object, the source object being the original object of the page (see
Wills p. 258, col. 2, 1. 30). Additionally, Wills' bundled object is an instance
of the source object as required in claim 22 as the bundled object in
home.bndl is represented by the original object's URL and metadata
including HTTP headers (Ans. 11 (citing Wills p. 258, col. 2)). Appellants
have not rebutted these specific Examiner findings.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 23. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 23.
Claim 24
With respect to independent claim 24, Appellants assert Wills does
not disclose the claimed "object instance of a source object" (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner finds Wills' original object of a page is a source object as
claimed (Ans. 10). The Examiner further finds "[b!oth bundled and original
objects are stored [in Wills] ... [t]hus, objects in the bundle are instances of
original objects" (Ans. 10 (citing Wills p. 258, col. 2)). We agree.
Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's specific
findings that Wills' bundled object is an instance of the original page object.
Rather, Appellants further contend Wills does not teach "references to an
8
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
object instance of a source object that are maintained in a particular file"
(App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7). We agree with the Examiner, however, that
Wills' bundle is a file including references to an object instance (object in
the bundle), which includes the URL, relevant metadata (HTTP headers),
and contents representing the object in the bundle (Ans. 3, 4, 10).
Appellants additionally contend Wills does not disclose a "type of
'reference' inconsistency identification, where particular 'references' to an
'object instance' of a 'data object' are identified as being inconsistent with
a change made to the actual 'data object' itself' of claim 24 (App. Br. 14).
Appellants, however, do not rebut the Examiner's reasonable findings that
Wills' differencing algorithm computes object-by-object differences that
identify old/inconsistent object references among the URL and metadata in
the bundle (Ans. 4, 10 (citing Wills p. 258, col. 2; p. 259, col. 2)).
We further note Appellants' argument that Wills does not teach the
claimed analyzing "to identity [sic] those 'references'-which again are
references to the 'object instance' of a 'source file '-that are inconsistent
with a change made to this same 'source file"' (App. Br. 14 (emphasis
added)) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 24. The claim does not
recite a source file.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claim 24.
Claims 9 and 19
With respect to claims 9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on a combination of Wills and Papachristou, the Examiner again relies
on Wills for the limitations of claims 2 and 12 from which claims 9 and 19
depend (Ans. 11 ). As discussed supra with respect to claim 2, we are not
9
Appeal2014-003208
Application 12/944, 105
persuaded that Wills teaches or suggests the identifying limitation of claim
2.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 13-15, and
20-24 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 6-9, 12, and 16-19 is
reversed.
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
10