Ex Parte Katwala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2014

11624657 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/624,657 01/18/2007 Niraj Katwala 40000139-0001-002 7042
26263 7590 03/12/2014
DENTONS US LLP
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
EXAMINER
AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2014 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 NIRAJ KATWALA and TIMOTHY ENGLAND
____________________

Appeal 2011-012546
Application 11/624,657
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H. BUI, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is Healthline Networks.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed March 1, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 27, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed April 26, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
Appeal 2011-012546
Application 11/624,657

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a technique for synchronizing cached
search results among a plurality of servers. Spec. ¶ [0001]. According to
Appellants, the search result files are synchronized among multiple servers
so that each of the servers stores copies of the search result files. Id. at ¶
[0004]. Such synchronizing may be performed periodically. Id.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized as follows:
1. A method comprising:
storing at each of a plurality of servers search result files
for search queries submitted to instances of a search engine
hosted at each of the servers;
retrieving, by a synchronizing server communicatively
coupled to each server storing search result files, information
regarding the stored search result files from each of the servers,
synchronizing the search result files stored by the servers
among the servers so as to store at each of the servers copies of
search result files stored by others of the servers.

Evidence Considered
Vleet US 2005/0033803 A1 Feb. 10, 2005

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Vleet. Ans. 4-5.

September 14, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed
January 18, 2007 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-012546
Application 11/624,657

3

Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Vleet. In particular, the appeal turns on whether
Vleet discloses synchronizing search result files among servers that host
search engines. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 5-7.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 4, the Examiner finds Vleet
discloses a similar method for synchronizing cached search results having all
the limitations, including storing at each of a plurality of servers search
result files for search queries submitted to instances of a search engine
hosted at each of the servers, retrieving by a synchronizing server
information regarding the stored search result files from each of the servers,
and synchronizing search result files stored by the servers among servers so
as to store at each of the servers copies of search result files stored by others
of the servers. Ans. 4 (citing Vleet, ¶¶ [0010], [0024], [0026], [0031]-
[0034], [0037], [0053], [0058], [0072], [0075]; and FIGS. 2-5).
FIG. 1 of Vleet is reproduced below.

App
App

FI
serve
p

requ
of ev
users
acce
persi
46 so
even
servi
sync
copy
phys
mirr
eal 2011-0
lication 11
G. 1 of Vl
rs 34 and
ersistent st
As show
ests from u
ent data in
(e.g., mo
ss, and ass
stent and
that each
t data stor
ce is used
hronizatio
of event d
ical storag
ored, a sin
12546
/624,657
eet shows
an event h
orage laye
n in FIG.
ser compu
dicative o
use clicks,
ociated co
synchrono
physical s
ed by othe
at each sto
n among a
ata at one
e servers 4
gle storage
a Web site
istory serv
r 44 made
1, one or m
ters 36 an
f events th
search qu
ntext infor
us storage
torage ser
r physical
rage layer
ll storage
storage la
6. Becau
layer serv
4
system 3
er 32 con
of a set of

ore Web
d then sen
at occur d
eries, URL
mation) to
among the
ver 46 ma
storage se
server 46
layer serve
yer server
se the stor
er 46 can
0 includin
sisting of a
physical
servers 34
d search r
uring brow
accessed
the event
set of phy
intains a c
rvers 46.
, shown in
rs 46 and
46 is also
age layer s
go down o
g one or m
cache lay
storage ser
receive an
esult files
sing sessi
, time/date
history se
sical stor
omplete co
Synchroni
FIG. 2, to
to ensure a
stored in a
ervers 46
r be taken
ore Web
er 40 and
vers 46.
d process
in the form
ons of
of the
rver 32 fo
age server
py of
zation
provide
complete
ll other
are
off line
a

r
s

App
App

with
Vlee

F

resul
App
files
argu

Id. (e
of V
stora
eal 2011-0
lication 11
out affecti
t, ¶ [0034]
FIG. 2 o
IG. 2 of V
sy
Appellan
t files amo
ellants con
among ser
e that Vlee
a client l
(populat
layer (po
each serv
range of
storage l
all the ev
mphasis a
leet are on
ge layer se
12546
/624,657
ng the ove
.
f Vleet is r
leet shows
nchroniza
ts acknow
ng these s
tend that V
vers that h
t’s Websi
ayer (popu
ed by cach
pulated by
er stores
session ID
ayer does
ent data. V
dded). Ac
ly used to
rvers 46 d
rall functio
eproduced
the use of
tion amon
ledge that
torage lay
leet does
ost search
te system i
lated by w
e layer ser
storage l
only event
s. Vleet a
each stora
leet at [0
cording to
store a com
o not host
5
nality of t
below.
synchron
g all storag
Vleet des
er servers
not disclo
engines.
s characte
eb server
vers), and
ayer server
data assoc
t [0032]. O
ge server s
034].
Appellan
plete cop
instances
he event h
ization ser
e layer se
cribes syn
46. App.
se synchro
Id. In par
rized by th
s), a cache
a persiste
s). At the
iated with
nly at the
tore a com
ts, the stor
y of all ev
of the sea
istory serv
vice 68 to
rvers 46.
chronizing
Br. 5. How
nizing sea
ticular, Ap
ree layers
layer
nt storage
cache lay
its respec
persistent
plete copy
age layer
ent data; t
rch engine
ice. See

provide
search
ever,
rch result
pellants
:
er,
tive

of
servers 46
hese
and,

Appeal 2011-012546
Application 11/624,657

6

therefore, cannot be considered as Appellants’ claimed “servers” that host
search engines as recited in independent claim 1. Id. Rather, only the
servers at the client layer can host instances of the search engines. Reply Br.
7.
The Examiner responds that “servers are servers, no matter if they
host search engines or are backup storage servers.” Ans. 5. Moreover, the
Examiner further finds that Vleet also teaches synchronizing search result
files among servers that host instances of search results. Id. at 6 (citing
Vleet, ¶¶ [0010], [0031]-[0032], [0037], [0053], [0058]; and FIGS. 4-5).
We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments,
there is no distinction between servers that host instances of a search engine
and servers that stores search result files. As correctly characterized by
Appellants, the Website system has three layers: (1) a client layer 39, (2) a
cache layer 40, and (3) a persistent storage layer 44, as shown in FIG. 1.
However, these layers are abstract layers of the same Website system, as
shown in FIG. 1 of Vleet. In actual implementation, the hosting of instances
of a search engine (i.e., search queries) is handled by a Web application 38
(i.e., search application 38, shown in FIG. 4 of Vleet, that is responsive to
search queries from users by generating and returning search results pages
listing search result URLs of external web pages that are responsive to such
search queries). After the search result files are returned, event data
indicative of the search result files is then recorded at storage servers 46.
See Vleet, ¶¶ [0024], [0027], [0034], [0036], [0059], and Claim 30. Both the
web server machines 34 and the storage layer servers 46, as shown in FIG. 1
of Vleet, can be implemented by the same servers. Consequently, the
Appeal 2011-012546
Application 11/624,657

7

storage servers 46 can also host instances of a search engine, as correctly
found by the Examiner. Ans. 6.
Moreover, “anticipation is a question of fact.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9
Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
1997)). “A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention
such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention”
within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the patent does not specifically disclose
certain features. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting
In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)). In other words, the
anticipation requirement that every element of a claim appears in a single
reference can accommodate situations where the common knowledge of
“technologists” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where technical facts are
known to those in the field of the invention. Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Furthermore, “[e]very
patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of
persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed.” In re
Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d
538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know
something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).
Here, we find Vleet discloses all features of Appellants’ independent
claims 1 and 4, including the search application 38 and the storage layer
servers 46, as shown in FIG. 1, except as to whether the storage layer servers
46 are capable of hosting instances of a search engine. Nevertheless, we
Appeal 2011-012546
Application 11/624,657

8

concur with the Examiner’s finding that hosting instances of a search engine
is necessarily present in such storage servers 46, and such a feature is well
recognized and fully understood by persons skilled in the art.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
any prejudicial error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of Appellants’
independent claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 4.
With respect to dependent claims 2-3 and 5, Appellants present no
separate patentability arguments. For the same reasons discussed, we also
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2-3 and 5.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Vleet.

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5.
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

sld