Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2012

11861063 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SHUDI GAO, MICHAEL RAFAEL
GLAVASSEVICH, NEIL GRAHAM, GLENN ALLEN
MARCY, YUHICHI NAKAMURA, TOYOTARO
SUZUMURA, TOSHIRO TAKASE,
and MICHIAKI TATSUBORI
________________

Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1-12 and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Invention
The present invention relates generally to an improved
data processing system and in particular to a method and
apparatus for validating code. More particularly, the present
invention relates to a computer implemented method, apparatus,
and a computer usable program product for validating an XML
(extensible markup language) document against an XML
schema.
(Spec. p. 1, ¶ [0001], “Field of the Invention”).
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary claims which are reproduced below
(emphasis added to disputed limitations):
1. A method for validating a target document written in a
structured language against a schema for the structured
language, the method comprising the computer-implemented
steps of:
storing document fragments that have been previously
validated against the schema;
comparing the target document to the document fragments to
identify portions of the target document that are schematically
identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the
target document is a new document that has not been
previously validated against the schema; and

1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action (FOA)
mailed Mar. 31, 2011; the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed Aug. 25, 2011; the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Nov. 23, 2011; and the original
Specification (Spec.) filed Sept. 25, 2007.
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

3
performing a validation of the target document while omitting
certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the
target document that are schematically identical to the
corresponding document fragments and that have been
previously validated against the schema and stored.

3. A method for validating a target document written in a
structured language against a schema for the structured
language, the method comprising the computer-implemented
steps of:
comparing a first part of the target document to a document
fragment, wherein the document fragment is associated with a
scanner context and a virtual machine context generated during
a prior validation when the document fragment was previously
validated against the schema, and wherein the target document
is a new document that has not been previously validated
against the schema; and
responsive to the first part of the target document matching
the document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first
part of the target document; and
reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context
to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the
target document.
Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Debique US 2004/0004631 A1 Jan. 8, 2004
Kupkova US 2004/0103124 A1 May 27, 2004
Chen US 2005/0177543 A1 Aug. 11, 2005
Zhilyaev US 2006/0004729 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
Ellison US 2006/0107257 A1 May 18, 2006
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

4
Rejections on Appeal 2
A. The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhilyaev in view of Kupkova (Ans. 5).
B. The Examiner has rejected claims 3-8 and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhilyaev and Kupkova in view of
Ellison (Ans. 7).
C. The Examiner has rejected claims 9-12 and 14-16 under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhilyaev, Kupkova, and Ellison
in view of Chen and Debique (Ans. 13).
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments against the rejections and
proposed claim groupings (App. Br. 14-23), and our authority under 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select the following representative claims to
decide this appeal in accordance with those arguments and rejections:
Claim 1: Claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1. (See App. Br. 14,
18).
Claim 3: Claims 4-8, 17-20, 9-12, and 14-16 stand or fall together
with claim 3 (See App. Br. 18, 22-24).
We note that no substantive arguments have been presented with
respect to the rejection of dependent claims 9-16, other than reliance upon

2 We note that the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in the Final Office Action
were withdrawn by the Examiner and arguments related thereto are not
considered in our Decision (Ans. 4).
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

5
the arguments associated with independent claim 3 from which these claims
variously and ultimately depend such that they stand or fall with claim 3.
We have only considered those arguments raised by Appellants in the
Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
1. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1 and 2
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants assert their claimed invention is not obvious over the
combination of Zhilyaev and Kupkova. Specifically, Appellants contend
that:
[T]he references, alone or in combination, do not teach or
suggest “storing document fragments that have been
previously validated against the schema; comparing the
target document to the document fragments to identify
portions of the target document that are schematically
identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the
target document is a new document that has not been
previously validated against the schema” as recited by
independent claim 1.
App. Br. 16.
Further in this regard, Appellants also contend that:
Kupkova does not teach “storing document fragments that
have been previously validated against the schema;
comparing the target document to the document fragments
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

6
to identify portions of the target document that are
schematically identical to corresponding document
fragments, wherein the target document is a new document
that has not been previously validated against the schema”
as recited by claim 1. Kupkova only discloses creating a
differences document and then later applying the differences
document to the correct original file, which is known as
patching the original document. Kupkova can't be used to
provide the recited features, because Kupkova's does not
teach “comparing the target document to the document
fragments to identify portions of the target document that are
schematically identical to corresponding document
fragments, wherein the target document is a new document
that has not been previously validated against the schema”
as recited by claim 1. Kupkova's only validates that the
document that is being patched is the correct document to be
patched.
App. Br. 16-17.
Appellants further contend:
Kupkova’s process is not the same as “comparing the target
document to the document fragments to identify portions of
the target document that are schematically identical to
corresponding document fragments, wherein the target
document is a new document that has not been previously
validated against the schema” as recited by claim 1.
App. Br. 17.
Finally, Appellants contend:
[T]he references do not teach or suggest “performing a
validation of the target document while omitting certain
validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target
document that are schematically identical to the
corresponding document fragments and that have been
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

7
previously validated against the schema and stored” as
recited by claim 1.
Consequently, claim 1 is not obvious . . . .
App. Br. 17-18.
Issue 1
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Zhilyaev with
Kupkova teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the steps of
“storing document fragments that have been previously validated against the
schema; comparing the target document to the document fragments to
identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to
corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new
document that has not been previously validated against the schema; and
performing a validation of the target document while omitting certain
validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target document that are
schematically identical to the corresponding document fragments and that
have been previously validated against the schema and stored,” as recited by
claim 1?
Analysis
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 18-20) in response to Appellants’ Arguments
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

8
(App. Br. 14-18). However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Zhilyaev with Kupkova teaches or suggests a method that
includes, inter alia, the steps of “storing document fragments that have been
previously validated against the schema; comparing the target document to
the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are
schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the
target document is a new document that has not been previously validated
against the schema; and performing a validation of the target document
while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the
target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding
document fragments and that have been previously validated against the
schema and stored,” as recited by claim 1. (Ans. 5-7, 18-20).
More specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Zhilyaev’s teaching of “document structure” (see Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0027], and
[0029]-[0030]) refers to a document schema which meets the claim
limitation of “schema.” Ans. 18 (citing Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0027], and [0029]-
[0030]). We also agree with the Examiner that Kupkova teaches comparing
the document structure from two documents, and also teaches or suggests
performing comparison of document structures, including fragments and, as
taught by Zhilyaev, the document fragments are stored, as recited in claim 1.
Ans. 19 (citing Kupkova at ¶¶ [0005], [0026], [0028], and Zhilyaev at ¶¶
[0029]-[0030]).
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

9
In light of the Examiner’s findings, supra, We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 16-17) that Kupkova merely discloses
creation of a difference document, and thereby cannot teach the claimed
subject matter because Kupkova does not teach “comparing the target
document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target
document that are schematically identical to corresponding document
fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been
previously validated against the schema,” as recited by claim 1.
Likewise, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion, without
citing evidence or otherwise providing substantive arguments, that the
references do not teach or suggest “performing a validation of the target
document while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions
of the target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding
document fragments and that have been previously validated against the
schema and stored,” as recited by claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3-12 and 14-16
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants assert their claimed invention is not obvious over the
combination of Zhilyaev with Kupkova and Ellison. Specifically,
Appellants contend that:
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

10
[T]he references, alone or in combination, do not teach or
suggest “responsive to the first part of the target document
matching the document fragment, omitting validation steps
of the first part of the target document; and reusing the
scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a
corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target
document” as recited by independent claim 3.
App. Br. 21. Appellants go on to contend that Kupkova generates a hash
code value which is used to validate that the document being patched is the
correct document and also generates a differences document that is used to
patch the first version of the file to generate the second version of the file.
App. Br. 21 (citing Kupkova at ¶ [0028]). In addition, Appellants assert
that:
[H]ash code values used for identifying that a file being
patched is the same file used to generate a patch file and
patching the file using the patch file can’t be used to provide
the features recited . . . [because n]either a hash code value
nor a patch file would be considered by those skilled in the
art as “reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine
context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent
part of the target document” as recited by claim 3.
App. Br. 21-22.
In addition, Appellants contend that:
Kupkova teaches that if the two files are exactly the same,
based on them having the same hash value, then the patch
can be applied and if they are not, then the patch can't be
applied. The references do not teach or suggest “reusing the
scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a
corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target
document” as recited by claim 3. Both references would
require reconstructing “the scanner context and the virtual
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

11
machine context” information for any subsequent validation
because neither reference teaches “reusing the scanner
context and the virtual machine context” as recited by claim
3.
App. Br. 22.
Finally, Appellants contend that:
Ellison is merely recited to show the concept of virtual
machine context. However Ellison does not teach or suggest
“responsive to the first part of the target document matching
the document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first
part of the target document; and reusing the scanner context
and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding
portion of a subsequent part of the target document” as
recited by claim 3.
Id.
Issue 2
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Zhilyaev with
Kupkova and Ellison teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia,
the steps of “responsive to the first part of the target document matching the
document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first part of the target
document; and reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context
to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target
document,” as recited by claim 3?
Analysis
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

12
conclusions with respect to claim 3, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 7-11, 20-22) in response to Appellants’
Arguments (App. Br. 18-23). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 3 for emphasis as follows.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, particularly
the Examiner’s interpretation that the recited “scanner context” can represent
a computing entity, such as data or metadata to aid in validation, and that, in
accord with Appellants’ Specification (Spec. ¶ [0069]), a scanner context
could include a namespace. Ans. 20-21. We find this interpretation to be
reasonable, and unrebutted by Appellants.
We further agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ argument
regarding reuse “without having to regenerate the context information,” is
not claimed. (Ans. 21, citing App. Br. 21-22). Thus, Appellants’ arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of claim 3.
We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that “Zhilyaev identifies
documents for accelerated validation that have a structure identical to a
previously validated document.” Ans. 22 (citing Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0029]-
[0030]). We agree with the Examiner that this suggests that a document
may have portions that were previously validated, as well as portions that are
not yet validated so that the parts of the document that matched previously
validated documents would not need full validation, as taught by Zhilyaev.
Ans. 22.
Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

13
Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the Examiner’s
characterization of the cited art or in the Examiner’s claim construction.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, as well as
claims 4-12 and 14-16 which fall with claim 3.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) and the rejection is sustained.
(2) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 3-8 and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejection is sustained.
(3) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 9-12 and 14-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejection is sustained.
(4) On this record, Appellants have not shown claims 1-12 and 14-
20 to be patentable.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 and 14-20 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2012-005824
Application 11/861,063

14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ELD