Ex Parte Kimber

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13525363 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/525,363 06/18/2012
46320 7590 09/28/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Kimber
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.
GB920070024US2
(467CON)
1130
EXAMINER
HO,BINHVAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY KIMBER1
Appeal2014-009334
Application 13/525,363
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12. Claims 5, 11, and 13 are canceled.
App. Br. 8, 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009334
Application 13/525,363
Invention
Appellant discloses the parsing of a message using a message model
in which determining that a message field in received messages matches a
field in a reference bitstream a predetermined number of times results in
storing parser outputs for the matching field for future reuse. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim l, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for parsing a message using a message model
compnsmg:
rece1vmg a message compnsmg one or more message
fields;
storing the message as a reference bitstream;
using the message model to compare a message field in
one or more subsequently received messages with the
equivalent field in the reference bitstream; and
responsive to determining that a message field in said
one or more subsequently received messages matches a field in
the reference bitstream a predetermined number of times,
storing parser outputs for the matchingfieldfor future reuse.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12 under the
obviousness-type double patenting doctrine as being unpatentable over
Kimber (US App. No. 12/190,344; issued as US 8,229,891 B2 on July 24,
2012) ("Kimber '891"). 2 Final Act. 3--4.
2 The Examiner incorrectly designates this rejection as being provisional.
Kimber '891, which issued July 24, 2012, had issued at the time of the
2
Appeal2014-009334
Application 13/525,363
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mynett (US 5,870,444; iss. Feb. 9,
1999) and Taylor (US 7,239,727 B2; iss. July 3, 2007). Final Act. 4--14.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in determining claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12 are
unpatentable over Kimber '891?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mynett and
Taylor teaches or suggests "responsive to determining that a message field in
said one or more subsequently received messages matches a field in the
reference bitstream a predetermined number of times, storing parser outputs
for the matching field for future reuse," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting Rejection
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's obviousness-type double-
patenting rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12. Accordingly, we summarily
sustain this rejection.
35 USC§ 103(a)
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Mynett's use of repeat
synchronization patterns to synchronize a data stream teaches or suggests
responsive to determining that a message field in said one or more
subsequently received messages matches a field in the reference bitstream a
rejection, which was mailed September 17, 2013. Therefore, the
obviousness-type double-patenting rejection was non-provisional. We hold
this error harmless.
3
Appeal2014-009334
Application 13/525,363
predetermined number of times, storing parser outputs for the matching field
for future reuse. Final Act. 5 (citing Mynett col. 2, 11. 53-62, col. 3, 11. 52-
55, and col. 7, 11. 6-9); Ans. 5 (citing Mynett col. 1, 11. 54--55, col. 2, 11. 31-
67, and col. 3, 11. 45---64).
Mynett repeats a pattern synchronization pattern eight times and
provides a three-bit index after each repeat of the pattern. Mynett Fig. 1. To
get the three-bit index, Mynett compares a portion of the repeated
synchronization pattern with a predetermined sampling pattern. Id. at col. 2,
11. 50-53. The Examiner finds that this predetermined sampling pattern
teaches or suggests a field in a reference bitstream. Final Act. 5 (citing
Mynett col. 2, 11. 49-52); Ans. 5. The index value can be used to look up a
byte-shift count and a bit-shift count to a message that follows the
synchronization pattern. See Final Act. 5 (citing Mynett col. 7, 11. 6-9); see
also Mynett Figs. 3--4. Thus, the byte and bit shift data can be saved for use
in later extraction of the data portion of the message. See Final Act. 5 (citing
Mynett col. 7, 11. 6-9).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "nothing in the
context of repeating a process until [a] pattern repeats for a pre-determined
number of times reads upon the claimed determination that a message field
in the one or more subsequently received messages matches a field in the
reference bitstream a predetermined number of times." App. Br. 6. In
particular, Appellant argues that
while Mynett teaches merely the repeating of a sync pattern a
predetermined number of times, claims 1 and 7 more
specifically call for the recognition of a likelihood of repeating
4
Appeal2014-009334
Application 13/525,363
a field of a bitstream in subsequent messages a predetermined
number of times so as to store parser outputs for future reuse.
Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error because Mynett teaches
or suggests determining that a message field (part of the repeated
synchronization pattern) matches a predetermined sampling pattern. Mynett
col. 2, 11. 49--53. Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the claimed
field in a reference bitstream from Mynett's predetermined sampling pattern.
Moreover, the claimed matching a predetermined number of times
encompasses matching one time. In particular, neither the claim recitations
nor any definition in the Specification requires the predetermined number to
be more than one. See App. Br. 2; Spec. i-fi-f l 00--06. Furthermore, claim 1
plainly encompasses messages having exactly one message field ("receiving
a message comprising one or more message fields") and the storing of parser
outputs based on a match with a single message ("responsive to determining
that a message field in said one or more subsequently received messages
matches ... a predetermined number of times"). Thus, the predetermined
number of times can be at least as low as one. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Mynett and Taylor teaches or suggests
"responsive to determining that a message field in said one or more
subsequently received messages matches a field in the reference bitstream a
predetermined number of times, storing parser outputs for the matching field
for future reuse," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2--4, 6-10, and 12, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
5
Appeal2014-009334
Application 13/525,363
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-10, and
12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6