10103400 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

Ex Parte James et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

10103400 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/103,400 03/21/2002 Zackary A. James RSW920010235US1 (033) 1475 46320 7590 12/17/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER JACOBS, LASHONDA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZACKARY A. JAMES and THOMAS O. ROWE ____________ Appeal 2010-008306 Application 10/103,400 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STEPHEN C. SIU, and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13. No other claims are pending. (See App. Br. 2 (June 11, 2007).) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-008306 Application 10/103,400 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification describes a high-speed content transformation method which includes serving previously generated transcoded content documents stored in cache memory which are determined to be standalone types of documents and to meet freshness criteria. (See Spec. 5.) Claim 1 on appeal follows: 1. A caching content transformation engine comprising: cache storage configured to store transcoded content; a content transformation engine configured to transcode content based upon input content and input transformation stylesheet documents; and, caching logic configured to respond to requests for transcoded content by retrieving said requested transcoded content from said cache storage without first generating said requested transcoded content in said content transformation engine, where freshness and standalone criteria for said requested transcoded content can be met by said requested transcoded content and its associated input content and input transformation stylesheet documents. (App. Br. Claims App’x .) Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) for anticipation based on Lai, U.S. 6,407,680 B1 (June 18, 2002). Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness based on Lai and Jungck, U.S. 7,003,555 B1 (Feb. 21, 2006). Claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness based on Lai and Hanna, U.S. 5,748,961 (May 5, 1998). Appeal 2010-008306 Application 10/103,400 3 DISCUSSION Appellants direct arguments to representative claim 1. (See App. Br. 4.) In reference to the Examiner’s reliance on columns 16, line 46 through column 17, line 9 of Lai (see Ans. 9-10 (Feb. 20, 2008)), Appellants assert that Lai does not disclose the recited “freshness . . . criteria” recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner disagrees, and reasons that the cited passages of Lai teach that “the transcoding engine checks to see if updated information is already in the cache and if not, the content is fetched. When the transcoding engine checks for updated information, it is performing the same function as checking for freshness.” (Ans. 10.) Appellants maintain that Lai does not discuss checking for updated information at the cited passages (or elsewhere). (See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5-7.) According to Appellants (see Reply Br. 6), Lai only discusses whether requested data resides in the cache, and then, if not, Lai’s system fetches requested data from elsewhere. Lai supports Appellants’ characterization of Lai’s teachings at the passages. As the Examiner and Appellants appear to agree implicitly that the recited freshness criteria can be satisfied at least by updating existing data in a cache (thereby refreshing that data), and the Examiner fails to explain persuasively how Lai’s system does that, it follows that Appellants’ position is more persuasive than the Examiner’s. In addition, claim 1 further requires that the refreshing criteria depend at least on the “requested transcoded content and its associated input content.” Appellant implicitly refers to this dependency by invoking a known definition for “freshness”; i.e., “how long a particular piece of data has been in a cache and whether or not the data is considered ‘expired’.” (See App. Br. 7 (citing the “First Appeal Brief” for the definition and its Appeal 2010-008306 Application 10/103,400 4 citation); accord Spec. 10.) Independent claims 4 and 9 recite “determining freshness criteria for said input documents which are determined to have been characterized as standalone.” (See Reply Br. 4, n.1.) Claims 4 and 9 also require the “previously transcoded content” to meet the freshness criteria. The Examiner’s explanation refers to updating based on fetching data outside a cache as opposed to determining the freshness criteria, and further, as opposed to basing the criteria on requested transcoded content or previously transcoded content, and input content or documents. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13 is reversed. REVERSED lb