Ex Parte HyvonenDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 11, 201310520171 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JORKKI HYVONEN ____________________ Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: DAVID M. KOHUT, BRYAN F. MOORE, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 8- 11 and 14-16. Claims 1-7, 12 and 13 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R §41.50(b). The claims are directed to searching for symbol string. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. A computer readable medium encoded with a computer program for executing a method for searching for an input symbol string among a set of symbol strings, comprising: creating a trie data structure of symbol strings, wherein the symbol strings are grouped into branches in such a manner that the symbol strings beginning with the same symbols belong to the same branch, and the symbol strings in the same branch divide into new branches at the symbols, from which onwards the symbols strings differ from each other, receiving an input formed of an input symbol string, proceeding from the starting point of the trie data structure along a branch to a calculation point indicated by the next symbol, calculating distances at the calculation point between a sample symbol string formed by the symbols of the calculation point of the branch in question and the calculation points preceding it and the input symbol string by comparing these in alternative ways, calculating at the calculation point also the smallest possible length difference corresponding to each distance that indicates how much the length of the remaining part of the input symbol string not examined in the distance calculation differs from the lengths remaining in the symbols strings passing through the calculation point, and calculating on the basis of each distance and corresponding length difference a reference value, Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 3 selecting repeatedly the next branch to follow to the calculation point indicated by the next symbol, at which said calculation is repeated for the new calculation point, said selection of the next branch being performed in such a manner that next the routine proceeds from the calculation point, from which the lowest reference value has been obtained as result, after the calculation has terminated, selecting one or more symbol strings having the shortest distance to the input symbol string on the basis of the performed calculations, and using the selected symbol string(s) to produce a response. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ballard US 5,377,281 Dec. 27, 1994 Kwok US 2002/0165873 A1 Nov. 7, 2002 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 4. Claims 8-11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 6. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph as being indefinite. Ans. 6. Claims 8-11 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ballard and Kwok. Ans. 7. Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 4 APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS 1. Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus and therefore to statutory subject matter. App. Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 1-2. 2. Claims 8-11, 14 and 15 comply with 35 USC 112, first paragraph written description requirement, original claim 6 reciting “[a] data medium readable by computer, characterized in that a computer program is readable from the data medium for performing the method according to any one of claims 1 to 4.” App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 2. 3. Claim 15 complies with 35 USC 112, second paragraph, since “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the apparatus need not be pre-loaded with the program and only need be capable of being loaded with a program and that the apparatus can be operated based on a computer program, circuits or a combination of the two.” App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 2-3. 4. Claims 8-11 and 14-16 would not have been obvious since “the edit distance calculation disclosed by Kwok appears to be closer to the claimed distance calculation, and not the claimed length difference calculation.” App. Br. 9-13, Reply Br. 3-6.1 ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-13) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-6) the issues presented on appeal are whether (i) claim 15 recites statutory subject matter; (ii) the disputed computer readable medium of claims 8-11, 14 and 15 find support in the application as filed, (iii) whether the term “loadable” renders claim 15 indefinite, and (iv) 1 As our resolution of this contention 4 is dispositive of the outcome of the appeal of the rejection of claims 8-11 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we do not address Appellant’s other contentions of error with regard to those claims. Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 5 claims 8-11 and 14-16 are rendered obvious by the combination of Ballard and Kwok. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to all rejections of the claims. In connection with contention 1, Appellant argues that claim 15 is directed to an apparatus and therefore to statutory subject matter. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner responds “that the phrase ‘[a]n apparatus loadable with a computer readable medium encoded with a computer program’ implies that the limitations recited in the claims are in fact mathematical algorithm limitations ‘loadable’ onto a computer, . . .,” Ans. 12. We disagree. Claim 15 recites an “apparatus” including an input and an output and structure recited in terms of means for performing specified functions as depicted in the block diagram of Fig. 3. The recited means are disclosed as circuits and/or programs (Spec. [0042]). The required program is shown as a flow chart in Fig. 1 with the functioning of an example given in the Specification at paragraphs [0016] – [0041]. Based on these limitations we find that the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore to statutory subject matter. Accordingly we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In connection with contention 2, Appellant argues that claims 8-11, 14 and 15 comply with the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, based on the language of original claim 6 reciting “[a] data medium readable by computer, characterized in that a computer program is Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 6 readable from the data medium for performing the method according to any one of claims 1 to 4.” App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 2. The Examiner responds that “since a ‘data medium’ is no longer recited in the claim language, support for a ‘computer readable medium’ is not present.” Ans. 13. We disagree with the Examiner. The claims are part of the Specification. See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2163(I) (B) Rev. 6, Sept. 2007, citing to In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Original claim 6’s recitation of “[a] data medium readable by computer” would have conveyed to one skilled in the art that Appellant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the invention so claimed. “[M]any original claims will satisfy the written description requirement . . . .” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also MPEP § 2163(I)(A), citing to Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976), states written description may be satisfied by the original claims, and that there is a strong presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when filed. The slight rewording of “data medium readable by computer” to the present “computer readable medium” language is a change of form only. Therefore, the disputed claim language complies with the written description requirement and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 8-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph. In connection with contention 3, Appellant argues that claim 15 complies with 35 USC 112, second paragraph, since “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the apparatus need not be pre-loaded with the program and only need be capable of being loaded with a program and that the apparatus can be operated based on a computer program, circuits or a combination of the two.” App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 7 responds that “the term ‘loadable’ is equivalent to ‘capable’ and therefore not effective to ‘loaded’ [sic], wherein Examiner understands an apparatus to be ‘capable’ of having a ‘computer readable medium encoded with a computer program’ to be non statutory.” Ans. 14. While the Examiner again questions whether claim 15 is directed to statutory subject matter (id), there is no explanation why the claim is indefinite. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph. In connection with contention 4, Appellant argues that claims 8-11 and 14-16 would not have been obvious since “the edit distance calculation disclosed by Kwok appears to be closer to the claimed distance calculation, and not the claimed length difference calculation.” App. Br. 9-13, Reply Br. 3-6. Therefore “KWOK does not meet the recited length difference calculation.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds that “by using the [equations] described by Kwok (i.e. [worst case edit distance - edit distance] / worst case edit distance), one skilled in the art can find the difference in edit distances until the length difference (or ‘measure edit distance’).” Ans. 17-18. We disagree that the example provided by the Examiner is the equivalent in all cases of the disputed length parameter. Even if the Examiner’s example produces a mathematical result equal to the length of a remaining part of the symbol string, it does not show that Kwok teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the length difference calculation as recited in claims 8-11 and 14-16. Instead paragraph [0062] of Kwok uses example of strings of the same length, i.e., “cat” and “cot” having an edit distance of 1 (i.e., one letter difference.) The worst case edit distance would appear to be the length of the longest string (in this case 3), although Kwok does not disclose as much. Thus Kwok’s edit distance measure is the fraction of worst case edit distance minus the actual edit Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 8 distance divided by the worst case edit distance. However, there is no disclosure of calculating the length of a remaining part of the input symbol string not examined. See App. Br. 10. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 8-11 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). NEW GROUND OF REJECTION The following new grounds of rejection are entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claims 8-11, and 14,2 recite a computer readable medium. However, Appellant’s Specification provides no definition of what is meant by computer readable medium. Absent any such definition we find Appellant’s invention encompasses transitory propagating signals which are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, p. 2 (Aug. 24, 2009), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_ instractions.pdf (emphasis in original) (“Interim Instructions”). Also see David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).3 2 Claim 14 recites “A method as claimed in claim 9” whereas claim 9 claims a “computer readable medium.” Should the change in wording of the preamble of claim 14 not be a clerical error then, should prosecution of claim 14 continue, the Examiner should consider whether it is an improper dependent claim warranting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 fourth paragraph. 3 While we reject claims 8-11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on inclusion of transitory propagating signals which are non-statutory subject Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter and under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph as being indefinite. The Examiner erred in rejecting 8-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner erred in rejecting 8-11, 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ballard and Kwok. A new ground of rejection is entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) and claims 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-11, and 14-16 is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 8-11 and 14. This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of matter, we do not decide whether the claims are otherwise directed to statutory subject matter. Appeal 2010-007862 Application 10/520,171 10 the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …. 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). REVERSED 37 CFR § 41.50(b) tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation