Ex Parte Ittycheriah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

11956403 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111956,403 12/14/2007 Abraham P. Ittycheriah
48063 7590 02/22/2016
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
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.
YOR920070592US 1 7403
EXAMINER
HUYNH,THUV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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):
nyoffice@rml-law.com
wel@rml-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABRAHAM P. ITTYCHERIACH, LEIMING QIAN,
ROBERT TODD WARD, and JIAN-MING XU
Appeal2014-002697 1
Application 11/956,403
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and WILLIAM M.
FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-12, 17, and 19-26. Claims 13-16 and
18 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002697
Application 11/956,403
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
asynchronously translating structured documents according to a
prioritization order specified by a user. Spec. 2:20-27, Fig. 1. In particular,
after partitioning structured document (202) into a plurality of translation
units, a browser client sends each of the translation units to a plurality of
translation servers (210) operating at different performance levels. Id., Fig.
2. Upon receiving from a translation server a translated text associated with
a translation unit, the client browser immediately presents the translated text
to the user who can ultimately substitute a translated text of a lower-quality
for another text of a higher-quality. Id. at 9: 19--28.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
Claim 1. A method for presenting translated text in a browser client,
the method comprising the steps of:
the browser client receiving the structured document including text to
be translated;
the browser client partitioning the structured document into a plurality
of translation units;
the browser client organizing an order in which to translate the
translation units according to a prioritization schedule that is specified, at
least in part, according to a user specification of priority for translating
translation units of a structured document;
the browser client sending each translation unit to each of a plurality
of translation servers which operate at different translation performance
levels, the plurality of translation servers comprising a first and second
translation server, wherein the first and second translation servers are
operative to translate each translation unit to a specific language in the
2
Appeal2014-002697
Application 11/956,403
order according to the prioritization schedule that is specified, at least in
part, according to the user specification of priority, wherein translating the
translation units comprises translating a given translation unit into at least
one representation of translated text by the first translation server and the
second translation server of the plurality of translation servers, the
first translation server independently providing the at least one
representation of translated text of a first quality and the second translation
server independently providing the at least one representation of translated
text of a second quality, the first quality being different than the second
quality; and
the browser client presenting the at least one representation of
translated text for the given translation unit within the structure document
immediately when the at least one representation of translated text is
received by the browser client from at least one of the plurality of translation
servers.
Reinders
Allan
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2003/0061022 Al
US 2003/0131052 Al
.r-;1 •
Glllll US 2003/0212962 Al
Neeman
Ban
Schurig
Chin
(hereinafter "Chin2 ")
Och
Kumaran
US 2005/0197826 Al
US 2007/0124675 Al
US 2008/0120090 Al
US 2008/0195372 Al
US 2008/0262828 Al
US 2008/0281578 Al
3
Mar. 27, 2003
July 10, 2003
Nov. 13, 2003
Sept. 8, 2005
May 31, 2007
May 22, 2008
Aug. 14, 2008
Oct. 23, 2008
Nov. 13, 2008
Appeal2014-002697
Application 11/956,403
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 19, 20, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig,
and Chin.
Claims 4, 8, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig, Chin, and Neeman.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig, Chin, and Reinders.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig, Chin, Neeman and
Allan.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig, Chin, and Kumaran.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig, Chin, Lee, and Chin2.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Och, Schurig, Chin, and Lee.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 10-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-5. 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 4, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed
4
Appeal2014-002697
Application 11/956,403
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination
of Och, Schurig, and Chin teaches or suggests a browser client sending to
each of a plurality of translation servers operating at different peiformance
levels each translation unit for translation according to a priority schedule
specified by a user, as required by claim 1?
Appellants argue the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 12-
15. In particular, Appellants argue Och's disclosure of a load balancer for
distributing different document segments across different translation servers
does not teach sending each document segment to each of the translation
servers. Id. at 12 (citing Och i-fi-142, 49, 52, 116, 117). Likewise, Appellants
argue that Schurig' s disclosure of sending a portion of a document to a
remote translation server does not cure the noted deficiencies of Och. Id. at
13. Additionally, Appellants argue Chin's disclosure of selecting complete
file for translation according to a specified order does not teach a priority
schedule for translation units. Id. at 14--15. These arguments are not
persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that Och's disclosure of the load
balancer sending document segments to low-quality translation servers and
to high quality servers to thereby allow low-quality translations to be
December 12, 2013), and the Answer (mailed November 20, 2013) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
5
Appeal2014-002697
Application 11/956,403
replaced with high quality translations teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Ans. 13 (citing Och i-f 117). As correctly noted by the
Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that
in order to replace lower-quality translation segments with corresponding
higher-quality segments, each of the translation servers must have received,
at some point, each of the translation segments. Id. Further, although,
Appellants admit that the cited portion of Och teaches the same translation
segments at different qualities, Appellants nonetheless argue that the
translation servers do not perform these operations in "parallel," and they do
not operate at different performance levels. Reply Br. 2-3. This argument
is not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the claim does not
require the translation servers translating the translation units in parallel.
Moreover, Och's disclosure of some servers producing high quality
translation at slow speeds while others produce low-quality translation at
high speed teaches that the servers operate at different performance levels.
Och i-fi-142, 117. We also agree with the Examiner that Och's disclosure ofa
user prioritizing the translation order of the translation segments teaches or
suggests prioritizing translation units according to a translation schedule
provided by a user. Ans. 15 (citing Och i-fi-1 116-117). Additionally, we
agree with the Examiner that Schurig's disclosure of partitioning at a
browser client a structured document into a plurality of translation units
would complement Och to predictably result in a translation system that
partitions the document locally before dispatching the translation units to the
load balancer. Ans. 14 (citing Schurig i-fi-140, 51, Fig. 2). Therefore, we
6
Appeal2014-002697
Application 11/956,403
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Och, Schurig, and Chin
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2-12, 17, and 19-26, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-12, 17, and 19-26 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-12, 17, and 19-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7