Ex Parte Gustafsson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2010

10608724 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS GUSTAFSSON
____________

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: January 15, 2010
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is related generally to the field of computer
science. More particularly, the invention on appeal is directed to the field of
network communications. (Spec. 1).
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A caching server comprising:

an answer cache configured to access answer information
through a flat data structure;

a referral cache configured to store referral information;
and

computer instructions configured to translate a domain
name into DNS information by examining the answer cache
and, responsive to the results of examining the answer cache,
examining the referral cache.

PRIOR ART
Fletcher US 2002/0178238 A1 Nov. 28, 2002
Vishin US 5,860,146 Jan. 12, 1999
Ramanathan US 6,182,136 B1 Jan. 30, 2001

EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE1
Nickel US 5,202,986 Apr. 13, 1993

1 The Examiner introduces the Nickel reference as extrinsic evidence in
support of the proffered motivation rationale, i.e., that a “flatter” tree
structure or “flat data structure” reduces access time. (Ans. 13, ¶2).
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11-43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fletcher and
Vishin.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fletcher, Vishin, and
Ramanathan.

ISSUES
Appellant argues specific limitations (App. Br. 20-46) that we address
infra. Appellant also argues that the cited references have been improperly
combined. (App. Br. 29-33). The Examiner contends that the references
have been properly combined and that each argued limitation is taught or
would have been suggested by the combination of cited references. (Ans.
11-15). Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issues are dispositive in this appeal:

Issue 1: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred by
improperly combining the cited references?

Issue 2: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting representative claim 1 by finding that the combination of Fletcher
and Vishin teaches or would have suggested “an answer cache configured to
access answer information through a flat data structure?” (Independent
claim 1).
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

4
Issue 3: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 19, 25, 29, and 35 by finding that the combination of
Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested a hash table?

Issue 4: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 3 by finding that the combination of Fletcher and Vishin
teaches or would have suggested a flat data structure that includes pointers
to a tree data structure?

Issue 5: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 4 by finding that the combination of Fletcher and Vishin
teaches or would have suggested “wherein the flat data structure include
pointers to a tree structure, and the tree data structure is configured to store
answer information and referral information?”

Issue 6: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11, 13, 17, 38, and 39 for the same rationale previously set
forth in claim 1, when these claims recite additional limitations that are not
recited in claim 1? (See App. Br. 34-35; see also Ans. 4, ¶2).

Issue 7: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 5, 27, and 28 for the same rationale previously set forth in
claim 3, when these claims recite additional limitations that are not recited in
claim 3? (See App. Br. 40; see also Ans. 5, ¶2).

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

5
Issue 8: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claim 30 by finding that the combination of Fletcher and
Vishin teaches or would have suggested “wherein a time required to
examine the answer cache is essentially constant as a function of the number
of labels comprising the domain name and essentially constant as a function
of the size of the answer?”

Issue 9: Under § 103, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting representative claim 33 by finding that the combination of Fletcher
and Vishin teaches or would have suggested “classifying the response
received; and storing the data received in either a referral cache or an answer
cache based on the classification?”

FINDINGS OF FACT
In our analysis infra, we rely on the following findings of fact (FF):
The Fletcher reference
1. Fletcher depicts in Figure 1 a plurality of name servers (103, 105,
107) and associated queries, answers, and referrals, as reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

6

Caption: Fletcher depicts in Figure 1 a plurality of name
servers (103, 105, 107) and associated queries, answers, and
referrals.
2. Fletcher teaches a hierarchy of name servers that includes top-level
root name servers, as follows:
[0031] As seen in FIG. 1, the name server 109 sends an
iterative query to name servers 103, 105, and 107 before finally
finding the answer from the name server 107. On occasion, a
name server that processes a recursive query may not have
information regarding the "closest" name server; this scenario
may arise from a recent reboot of the name server host, a totally
expired cache, or a request for a top-level domain that has never
before been accessed. In this case, the name server needs to
obtain the data from a root name server. Per the protocol, all
DNS servers have information on the location of the root name
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

7
servers, so that the search for the next closest name server is
guaranteed to stop at the root name server. The name servers for
the root zone resolve top-level domains (i.e., com, .gov, org,
.edu, and etc.). Root name servers are fixed, and are well known
resources on the Internet.
3. Fletcher teaches caching answers received from other servers, as
follows:
[0032] The name servers 101, 103, 105, and 107 cache the
answers that they receive from other servers. Each query
response may include a time-to-live (TTL) value that informs
the querying name server of the length of time to maintain that
particular answer in its cache. This caching allows recursive
queries to be resolved much more quickly since all the name
servers along the line will have "better" referrals or the actual
answer to a query.
4. Fletcher teaches address resolution using name servers, as follows:
[0034] Accordingly, the name server 101 then issues another
iterative query to the name server 105 per the referral from the
root name server 103. If the name server 105 has the answer in
its cache, the name server 105 would provide the answer to the
name server 101. However, in this example, the name server
105 does not have the answer, and thus, responds with a referral
to the name server 107. Continuing with the address resolution
process, the name server 101 issues another iterative query to
the name server 107. In this example, the name server 107 has
the requested host name (or address) in its local database; this
server 107 is said to be "authoritative" because the answer does
not originate from its cache. The name server 107 then replies
to the name server 101 with the answer to the query. In turn, the
name server 101 sends the answer to the resolver 109. At this
point, the address resolution process is complete and the
resolver 109 possesses the necessary address information (e.g.,
IP address) to forward data to the machine with associated with
the IP address.

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

8
The Vishin reference
5. Vishin teaches a remote translation lookaside buffer (RTLB 160, Fig.
6) that performs address mapping, as follows:
The computer system further includes a remote translation
lookaside buffer (RTLB), also called an auxiliary TLB, that
stores a plurality of remote page table entries. Each remote page
table entry represents a mapping between a range of physical
addresses and a corresponding range of remote physical
addresses. The primary translation lookaside buffer translates a
virtual address asserted by the data processor into a physical
address. When the physical address does not correspond to a
location in local memory, the RTLB determines whether the
physical address matches at least one of the remote page table
entries stored in the RTLB, and selects one of those remote
page table entries when at least one match is found. Then, a
remote physical address is generated by combining a portion of
the selected remote page table entry with a portion of the
physical address. (Col. 3, ll. 46-61).

Appellant’s Specification

6. Appellant’s Specification states that “in some embodiments, the
flat data structure of Answer Cache 165 includes pointers (e.g.
index values or memory addresses, etcetera) to another data
structure in place of answer information.” (Spec. 15, ¶ [0040]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 417.
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

9
Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the
foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity
and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement
than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the
business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity
which constitute the essential elements of every invention.

Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood,
52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood was cited with approval
by the Supreme Court in KSR, 550 U.S. at 406, 415, 427).
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Therefore, we look to Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the
Examiner’s proffered prima facie case.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we consider Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs only to
the extent that such arguments are directed to claimed subject matter.2

2 Patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the claims that measure the
invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction is that
one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description.
Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir.
1998).

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

10
ISSUE 1
Threshold question of combinability under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred by improperly combining the cited references under § 103.
Appellant makes the following contentions: (1) Fletcher and Vishin
are not analogous art, (2) the Examiner has not provided a reasonable
expectation of success, (3) the Examiner is improperly modifying the
teachings of Vishin, and (4) the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
motivation to combine Fletcher and Vishin. (App. Br. 29-33).
Regarding Appellant’s first contention, we find that each of the
references relied on by the Examiner is directed to the same general field of
endeavor as the instant invention on appeal, i.e., computer network
communication, including network address mapping and resolution. (See FF
1-5). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Fletcher and Vishin
are each reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved. (Ans. 12). Therefore, we find each of the cited
references is analogous art to the claimed invention.3

3 “Whether a reference in the prior art is analogous is a fact question.”
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria
have evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d
436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

11
Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that the conclusion of
obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents,
the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art, and an obviousness “analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick
Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Here, it is our view that an artisan possessing common sense and
creativity at the time of the invention would have been familiar with various
methods of network address mapping and resolution (See FF 1-5). We are
mindful that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the “combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results,” KSR 550 U.S. at 401.
This reasoning is applicable here. Given the breadth of Appellant’s
claims, we are not persuaded that combining the respective familiar elements
of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner was
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” (see
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). Therefore, we find the Examiner’s
proffered combination of familiar prior art elements (e.g., a cache and a flat
data structure) according to their established functions would have conveyed
a reasonable expectation of success to a person of ordinary skill having
common sense at the time of the invention.
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

12
We are also not persuaded that: (3) the Examiner has improperly
modifying the teachings of Vishin, or (4) that the Examiner has not provided
a sufficient motivation to combine Fletcher and Vishin. (App. Br. 31-32).
To the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that Vishin’s RTLB 160
reasonably teaches or would have suggested the use of a “flat” (i.e., non-
tree) data structure (see discussion infra). We also note the Examiner has
supported the proffered motivation statement (Ans. 4) with extrinsic
evidence (Nickel reference) purportedly showing that a “flatter” tree
structure or “flat data structure” may reduce access time. (Ans. 13, ¶2; see
Note 1 supra). We particularly note that this new extrinsic evidence has not
been addressed by the Appellant in the Reply Brief.
Lastly, we note that Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s legal
conclusion of obviousness by showing that the claimed combination of
familiar elements produces any new function. Appellant has not provided
any factual evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected or
unpredictable results, commercial success, or long felt but unmet need.
Therefore, we find Appellant’s arguments unavailing regarding the
combinability of the cited Fletcher and Vishin (and Ramanathan) references
for essentially the same reasons proffered by the Examiner in the Answer (4,
13-14), and as further discussed above. Accordingly, we find Appellant has
not shown the Examiner erred by improperly combining the cited references
under § 103.

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

13
Issue 2
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 1 by finding that the combination of
Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested “an answer cache
configured to access answer information through a flat data structure.”
(Independent claim 1).
Appellant attempts to distinguish the claimed “answer cache” by
stating that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘answer
information’ to include, for example, an Internet Protocol (IP) address
provided in response to [a] DNS request.” (App. Br. 28). Appellant further
avers that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would not expect ‘answer information’ as
received from an ‘answer cache’ to include ‘a remote physical address’ [as
taught by Vishin].” (Id.). However, we note that IP addresses (or any other
types of addresses) are not recited in claim 1; therefore, we find this point of
argument unavailing.
We find Fletcher teaches caching answers received from other servers
(FF 3). The Examiner merely looks to the secondary Vishin reference for
teaching or suggesting the claimed “flat data structure.” (Ans. 3-4, 11; claim
1).
We particularly note that Appellant’s Specification states that “in
some embodiments, the flat data structure of Answer Cache 165 includes
pointers (e.g. index values or memory addresses, etcetera) to another data
structure in place of answer information.” (FF 6, underline added). We find
Vishin’s RTLB 160 performs memory address translation (i.e., address
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

14
mapping or conversion), and therefore contains memory addresses (i.e.,
pointers) in a “flat” i.e., “non-tree” data structure (table) (FF 5). Appellant is
arguing the Vishin reference in isolation.
We note that “[t]he test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In
determining obviousness, a reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." Id.
This reasoning is applicable here. We note that the Examiner’s
rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Fletcher and Vishin.
Moreover, the Appellant has not rebutted with any substantive argument the
Examiner’s finding that Vishin’s RTLB (FF 6; Fig. 6) “is a table which is a
flat (single-layer) data structure and not a tree (multi-layer) data structure.”
(Ans. 13, ¶1). Therefore, we find Appellant has not sustained the requisite
burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of representative claim

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

15
1, and associated dependent claims 6-9 and 43 (not argued separately) that
fall therewith. Based upon Appellant’s arguments in the principal Brief,
claims 26 and 34 also fall with claim 1. (App. Br. 28-34).4
Appellant further contends that claim 10 (that depends from claim 1)
should be overturned for the same reasons as claim 1. (App. Br. 46). For
the same reasons discussed supra regarding claim 1, we find Appellant has
not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as being obvious
over the combination of Fletcher, Vishin, and Ramanathan.

Issue 3
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2, 19, 25, 29, and 35 by finding that the
combination of Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested a hash
table.

4 When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued
as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group
of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the
group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the
failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped
together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must
consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

16
Appellant contends that even if one were to assume, arguendo, that
Vishin’s RTLB 160 is a flat data structure, it is clearly not a hash table.
(App. Br. 37). The Examiner counters that “a hash table is nothing but a
table that associates keys with values.” (Ans. 14, §2).
Based upon our review of Vishin, we find no literal disclosure of a
hash table regarding the description of Vishin’s RTLB 160 (FF 5; Fig. 6), or
elsewhere in the Vishin reference. Moreover, while the Examiner’s
statement that a hash table associates keys with values (i.e., indexes) is
technically correct, we find the Examiner has not established in the record
that the association between the keys and the values (indexes) purportedly
shown or suggested by Vishin’s RTLB 160 is created via any type of hash
function. The hash function is necessary to transform each key into an index
value; otherwise, there is no hash table. Because Vishin is silent regarding
any hash table having a requisite hash function, we find the weight of the
evidence supports Appellant’s argument that Vishin fails to provide a
teaching or fair suggestion of the claimed hash table. Because we find the
Fletcher reference fails to overcome this deficiency, we find Appellant has
shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 19, 25, 29, and 35 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fletcher and Vishin. Because claim
19 is an independent claim, we also reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of associated dependent claims 20-24.

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

17
Issue 4
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 3 by finding that the combination of
Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested a flat data structure
that includes pointers to a tree data structure.
We have found supra that Vishin’s RTLB 160 performs memory
address translation (i.e., address mapping or conversion), and therefore
contains memory addresses (pointers) in a “flat” i.e., “non-tree” data
structure (table) (FF 5). We find Fletcher teaches a hierarchy (i.e., tree
structure) of name servers that includes top-level root name server. (FF 1-
2). Because pointers are merely addresses that point to data, we find
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 39) that the Examiner’s proffered
combination of Fletcher and Vishin does not teach or even suggest
“pointers” is unsupported by the evidence of record (See e.g., FF 5).
Appellant persists in arguing that even if it were assumed that the
RTLB 160 of Vishin included a pointer, there does not appear to be any
teaching of DNS information in Vishin, much less the hypothetical pointers
that point to DNS information. (App. Br. 39). We also find this line of
argument to be unavailing, because we find Fletcher teaches domain name
servers and associated DNS information. (FF 1-4). (Claim 1 actually recites
the DNS information. Claim 3 depends from claim 1).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR at 417 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

18
Because we find familiar old elements such as pointers, flat data structures
and tree data structures may readily combined by an artisan with predictable
results, we conclude that Appellant’s claim 3 would have been obvious to an
artisan having knowledge of the combined teachings and suggestions of
Fletcher and Vishin. Therefore, we find Appellant has not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 3.

Issue 5
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 4 by finding that the combination of
Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested “wherein the flat data
structure includes pointers to a tree structure, and the tree data structure is
configured to store answer information and referral information?”
Appellant focuses on the Vishin reference in isolation and avers that
these limitations allowable over Fletcher in view of Vishin. (App. Br. 42).
We disagree. To the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that
Fletcher teaches or would have suggested a tree data structure (name server
hierarchy – FF 1-2) that is configured to store answer information and
referral information (FF 1, 4). We have addressed supra the limitation of the
flat data structure (Vishin’s RTLB 160) that would have included pointers
(addresses) to a tree structure in the Examiner’s proffered combination
(Fletcher’s name server hierarchy – see FF 1-2). For at least these reasons,
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

19
we find Appellant has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in
providing arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 4.

Issue 6
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11, 13, 17, 38, and 39 for the same rationale
previously set forth in claim 1, when these claims recite additional
limitations that are not recited in claim 1. (See App. Br. 34-35; see also Ans.
4, ¶2).
The Examiner rejects the aforementioned claims as follows: “As per
claims 11, 13, 17, 26, 34 and 38-39, see arguments with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. Claims 11, 13, 17, 26, 34 and 38-39 are also rejected
based on the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1.” (Ans. 4).
Based upon our review of the record, we pro forma reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13, 17, 38, and 39 for the same reasons
argued by Appellant in the Brief, i.e., the additional limitations recited in
these claims have not been addressed by the Examiner. Therefore, we agree
with Appellant that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Because claims 11, 13, and 17 are independent claims, we also reverse the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of associated dependent claims 12, 14-16, and
18.

Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

20
Issue 7
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting 5, 27, and 28 for the same rationale previously set forth in
claim 3, when these claims recite additional limitations that are not recited in
claim 3. (See App. Br. 40; see also Ans. 5, ¶2).
Based upon our review of the record, we pro forma reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 27, and 28 for the same reasons argued by
Appellant in the Brief, i.e., the additional limitations recited in these claims
have not been addressed by the Examiner. Therefore, we agree with
Appellant that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established.

Issue 8
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting dependent claim 30 by finding that the combination of
Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested “wherein a time
required to examine the answer cache is essentially constant as a function of
the number of labels comprising the domain name and essentially constant
as a function of the size of the answer.”
Appellant argues that the aforementioned limitations are not normal
characteristics of flat data structures. (App. Br. 44-45).
The Examiner points to Fletcher’s paragraph [0008] as evidence to
support the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 30. (Ans. 6-7). For convenience,
we reproduce Fletcher’s paragraph [0008] below:
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

21
[0008] The present invention addresses the above stated
needs by providing a terminal with the capability to cache
address information, such that a host that is local to the terminal
may submit a query to retrieve the address information that is
stored within the terminal. In response to a cache hit, the
terminal transmits the address information corresponding to the
query to the requesting local host. The query from the local host
may also be forwarded by the terminal across a
communications network, such as a satellite network, to a
server that stores the requested address information. Upon
receiving the requested address information, the terminal
refreshes the cache.

Because we find no support for the Examiner’s rejection regarding at
least the recited (and argued) “essentially constant” time limitations, we find
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred regarding the §103 rejection of
dependent claim 30.

Issue 9
Limitations under § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 33 by finding that the combination of
Fletcher and Vishin teaches or would have suggested “classifying the
response received; and storing the data received in either a referral cache or
an answer cache based the classification.”
We note that Appellant merely restates the Examiner’s remarks and
makes the follow assertion:
“The Appellant has reviewed Fletcher, and in particular those
paragraphs cited by the Examiner, however, the Appellant is unable to
identify any teaching of ‘classifying the response received; and storing the
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

22
data received in either a referral cache or an answer cache based the
classification,” as recited in Claim 33.” (App. Br. 46).
Appellant argues claims 33, 36, 37, and 40 as a group. (Id.). We
select claim 33 as the representative claim for this group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We find Fletcher teaches or would have suggested the
use of answer and referral caches, as claimed (See FF 1 and 4). As for the
argued “classification,” we find Fletcher teaches that “[e]ach query response
may include a time-to-live (TTL) value [i.e., classification] that informs the
querying name server of the length of time to maintain that particular answer
in its cache.” (FF 4). Therefore, we find the combination of Fletcher and
Vishin teaches or would have suggested the argued limitations of
“classifying the response” and “storing the data received in either a referral
cache or an answer cache based on the classification,” as recited in
representative claim 33. (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find Appellant
has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
representative claim 33 and claims 36, 37, and 40 that fall therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3,
4, 6-9, 26-28, 31-34, 36, 37, and 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fletcher and Vishin.
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Fletcher, Vishin, and Ramanathan.
Appeal 2009-003146
Application 10/608,724

23
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 5,
11-25, 29, 30, and 35, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fletcher and Vishin.

ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10,
26-28, 31-34, 36, 37, and 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 5, 11-25, 29,
30, and 35, 38, and 39 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

Gard and Kaslow LLP
One 1st Street, Suite 9
Los Altos CA 94022