Ex Parte Heuer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2016

11632622 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/632,622 12/26/2007 Jorg Heuer
86528 7590 06/08/2016
Slayden Grnbert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701
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.
03869.119094 7692
EXAMINER
SCHALLHORN,TYLERJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2016 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
dallen@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORG HEUER, ANDREAS HUTTER, and
ANDREA KOFLER-VOGT
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 16-35, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 1-15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the disclosed and claimed invention relates
to "encoding an XML document" (Spec. 1, 1. 1 ).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 16 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
16. A method for encoding an XML document in a binary bit
stream, where the XML document is represented by a tree
structure of absolute paths, each represented by a series of XML
element or attribute names, and at least one XML element has
simple content, said method comprising:
sorting, by a processor which uses memory accessible by
the processor, first records storing strings of the absolute paths
of the XML elements with simple content and XML attributes
from a document order into a sorted order, according to at least
one first predeterminable sorting criterion, each string including
all XML element/attribute names on a path from an initial node
to a node represented by an absolute path;
associating each value of the XML elements having
simple content and the XML attributes of a respective absolute
path, with a value representative in a value structure, where value
representatives in the value structure are sorted according to a
second sorting criterion;
associating each value representative in the value structure
with a path position, where the path position represents a position
of the respective value representative in the tree structure in
relation to the respective absolute path.
2
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Dodds et al. ("Dodds") US 2002/0116371 Al
Bhatt et al. ("Bhatt") US 2003/0101169 Al
Wan US 2004/0028049 Al
Aug.22,2002
May 29, 2003
Feb. 12,2004
Claims 16-30 and 32-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Bhatt, Wan, and Dodds.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Bhatt and Dodds.
II. ISSUE
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Bhatt, Wan, and Dodds teaches or would
have suggested a method for encoding an XML document that is
"represented by a tree structure of absolute paths, each represented by a
series of XML element or attribute names, and at least one XML element has
simple content," wherein the method comprises "associating each value of
the XML elements having simple content and the XML attributes of a
respective absolute path, with a value representative in a value structure,"
wherein strings of the absolute paths are stored, "each string including all
XML element/attribute names on a path from an initial node to a node
represented by an absolute path" (claim 16, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
3
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
Bhatt
1. Bhatt discloses transforming an XML document "into a
collection of bytes ... that can be stored in a database or file system" (i-f 34).
Particularly, the XML document is converted "into a transformed object
referred to as a SybXMLStream data structure or object" (i-f 74) to provide
"efficient access to the underlying XML data" (i-f 34).
2. Figure 4B is reproduced below:
FIG. 48
Figure 4B shows a tree structure that "illustrat[es] the creation of the
structure of a SybXMLStream object" (i-f 80) and is "derived from the
structure of the source [XML] document" (i-f 75). Each node in the tree
structure is assigned an object ID or "OID" number (i-f 82). The tree
structure has absolute paths starting from the root node, e.g., a path
"'/bookstore/book/author/first-name'" (i-f 96) from bookstore 1, the root
node, to book 2, author 5, and first-name 6, which are all elements (i-f 80).
4
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
"Leaf 7 is text with the value 'Mary' indicating that the first name of the
author of book 2 is Mary" (id.). "Book 10 has three children: title 11, author
13 and an attribute, Style 18. The value of the attribute Style is 'textbook'.
Note that the attribute is a leaf node" (id.).
3. Data offsets are stored for the leaf nodes (i-f 114). "The offsets
are stored in alphabetical or sorted order in the value index based upon the
underlying values associated with the offsets" (id.).
Dodds
4. Dodds discloses, for an XML document tree (i-f 25), "assigning
each element name a unique XMLName property (in this example, the
property is alphanumeric)" (i-f 33), as shown in Table 1 ("the XMLName
Table"), reproduced below. A "NamePath value may be constructed from
the XMLN am es of each node on the path from the root node to the node of
interest" (i-f 35), as shown in the NamePath Table, also reproduced below.
The NamePath Table may be stored in a relational database (i-f 36).
t-;f'l',luamt:
lo.i~b1::1.Jll~
TABLE I
5
;~;~ ~'.: ~;.:::h;.~~~~~~l~;~,, :t
j i~·\·f("'::)'/~~"':,:,!\/C i-t t~
: :~~.:.::·~ .. ·"::'·~~.;.::.;,".;.;'(;I~!;;~:;
: ;3): :•. •' ~· .': :•:•:) k·~·H tt:-..: :·c_;'.:. i :. :;-:
!_.~): :•. :- ~: .t~.:·· ) k_.)~H ti:-: ·:·t/ti. ~ "J: ::,,) !fo':
: i~~1·1~: y: ~:-~:·::_,;._:·:~n~: •·:~ t :b·;c ~~-1~:~~.r.:
IV. ANALYSIS
~...-~:1i/-:.
.i.:":':<3..)
As for representative claim 16, Appellants contend Bhatt fails to
disclose "the XML document is represented by a tree structure of absolute
paths, each represented by a series of XML element or attribute names" or
5
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
that "at least one XML element has simple content," as claimed (App.
Br. 4--5). Appellants then contend "none of [Bhatt' s] parameters define the
position of the absolute path" (App. Br. 5) and that Bhatt thus does not
disclose "associating each value of the XML elements having simple content
and the XML attributes of a respective absolute path, with a value
representative in a value structure," as claimed (App. Br. 6; see also Reply
Br. 2). Appellants further contend Dodds does not disclose first records
storing "strings of the absolute paths ... each string including all XML
element/attribute names on a path from an initial node to a node represented
by an absolute path" (Reply Br. 3--4), as recited in claim 16.
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the
Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the
Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Although Appellants contend that, in Bhatt, "[a] SybXMLStream
object is generatedfor each node illustrated in Figs. 4A and 4B, and as a
result, each object does not include 'at least one XML element [that] has
simple content' ... i.e., a leaf node" (App. Br. 5, emphasis added), such
argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited claim language. In
6
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
particular, claim 16 does not require each object to include at least one XML
element that has simple content. Rather, the claim merely requires that "at
least one XML element has simple content" in the recited method. Although
Appellants contend that "the data structure in Bhatt et al. includes nodes that
are not leaves" (App. Br. 5), claim 16 does not preclude a data structure
disclosing other nodes in addition to leaf nodes, i.e., XML elements having
simple content. As the Examiner points out, and we agree, "the claim does
not require storing only leaf nodes" (Ans. 3).
Similarly, Appellants' contentions that 1) Bhatt's parameters do not
"define the position of the absolute path as claimed," 2) Bhatt's "offset does
not describe the position of an absolute path of a respective value
representative in the tree," 3) in Bhatt, "no path position can be derived
based on the OID number," and 4) Bhatt's linking information cannot be
used to "define 'a node represented by an absolute path"' (App. Br. 5---6,
emphasis added) are not commensurate in scope with the recited claim
language. In particular, claim 16 does not require defining, describing, or
deriving the position of the absolute path, a path position, or a node
represented by an absolute path.
Furthermore, regarding Appellants' contention that Dodds' "XML
name value ... has a one-to-two relationship with attributes and thus, the
path would not be 'absolute"' (Reply Br. 4), neither the claims nor the
Specification define an "absolute path" to preclude a one-to-two relationship
between XML name values and attributes. Claim 16 merely defines
"absolute paths" as "represented by a series of XML element or attribute
names," and the Specification merely describes "absolute paths" as
7
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
"start[ing] from the root node of the document structure tree and lead[ing] to
a leaf node of the document structure tree" (Spec. 13).
We find no error in the Examiner's reliance on Bhatt for teaching or
suggesting that "the XML document is represented by a tree structure of
absolute paths, each is represented by a series of XML element or attribute
names" (Final Act. 3, emphasis omitted). In particular, Bhatt discloses
absolute paths, each represented by a series of XML element or attribute
names, e.g., "/bookstore/book/author/first-name" (FF 1-2). We agree with
the Examiner's finding that "Bhatt teaches that the XML document is
represented by a tree in FIG. 4B" (Ans. 2; FF 2).
As the Examiner notes (Ans. 2), Appellants describe an XML element
having simple content as "i.e., a leaf node" (App. Br. 5). We agree with the
Examiner that Bhatt discloses leaf nodes (Ans. 5; FF 2) and thus "at least
one XML element [that] has simple content" as claimed.
Despite Appellants' contention that "only the OID number is assigned
to each offset" in Bhatt (App. Br. 5), we do not find error with the
Examiner's reliance on Bhatt's offsets for teaching and suggesting the
claimed "value representative" (Final Act. 4). In particular, Bhatt's values
of the XML elements having simple content and the XML attributes (i.e.,
values of the leaf nodes) are each associated with an offset in that offsets are
stored for the leaf nodes (FF 3). The offsets are "stored in alphabetical or
sorted order in the value index [i.e., in a value structure] based upon the
underlying values associated with the offsets" (id.), i.e., "sorted according to
a second sorting criterion," as claimed.
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner's reliance on Bhatt for
teaching or suggesting "associating each value of the XML elements having
8
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
simple content and the XML attributes of a respective absolute path, with a
value representative in a value structure, where value representatives in the
value structure are sorted according to a second sorting criterion" (Reply Br.
2, citations omitted).
We also agree with the Examiner's reliance on Dodds' name
properties for teaching or suggesting "XML element/attribute names" (Final
Act. 5). Although Appellants contend Dodds discloses "pure numbers . ..
assigned to element or attribute names" (App. Br. 6-7), we find no error in
the Examiner's finding that Dodds teaches or suggests "XML
element/attribute names on a path from an initial node to a node represented
by an absolute path," as recited in claim 16 (Final Act. 5). That is, nothing
in the Specification or the claims precludes "XML element/attribute names"
from encompassing numbers on a path.
Further, Dodds discloses storing the NamePath Table, which contains
strings including all XML element/attribute names from the initial node to
the node represented by the absolute path, e.g., "library/book/author/
lastname" (FF 4). Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that Dodds' name
properties are not "XML element/attribute names" because they are
numbers, we agree that Dodds in combination with Bhatt and Wan at least
suggests "storing strings of the absolute paths ... each string including all
XML element/attribute names on a path from an initial node to a node
9
Appeal2014-008985
Application 11/632,622
represented by an absolute path" in the N amePath Table (id.), as recited in
claim 16. 1
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 16, and claims 17-30 depending therefrom (and not
separately argued) as obvious over Bhatt, Wan, and Dodds. As for claims
31 and 32, Appellants do not provide separate substantive arguments (App.
Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3). Thus, we also find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 31 as obvious over Bhatt and Dodds, and of
independent claim 32 and claims 33-35 depending therefrom as obvious
over Bhatt, Wan, and Dodds.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-35 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
1 Although Appellants contend "nothing has been cited or found in Bhatt et
al. suggesting ... 'a string including all XML element/attribute names on a
path from an initial node to a node represented by an absolute path' as
recited in claim 31" (Reply Br. 2), we note the Examiner relied upon Dodds
for this limitation (Final Act. 12).
10