Ex Parte Knittel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2011

10780833 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2011)

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.
10/780,833 02/18/2004 Steven F. Knittel KNITTEL, ET AL.
(LCNT/126
3728
46363 7590 06/21/2011
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte STEVEN F. KNITTEL, MADHAV MOGANTI, and
NATARAJ RAO
________________

Appeal 2009-006980
Application 10/780,833
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ERIC B. CHEN Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-006980
Application 10/780,833

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
1. An apparatus for use in a communication network,
comprising:
a gateway operable within said network for receiving a
request for a resource having embedded data and, in
response to said request, for obtaining said resource and
said embedded data using a resource index file having
information regarding said resource and said embedded
data, for bundling said resource and said embedded data
into a file, and for sending said file.
(App. Br. 21, Claims App’x).

Rejections and Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morlitz (US 2002/0065800
A1) and Pepper (US 7,206,777 B2) because:1
The combination of Morlitz and Pepper fails to teach or suggest
obtaining a resource and the resource’s embedded data using a resource
index file having information regarding the resource and the embedded data
(App. Br. 11 – 16).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 27.
Appeal 2009-006980
Application 10/780,833

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Morlitz and
Pepper teaches or suggests obtaining a resource and embedded data using a
resource index file having information about the resource and the embedded
data?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Furthermore, we do not find persuasive Appellants’ argument that
Pepper fails “to teach or suggest that the index file 155 includes any
information which may be used to obtain XML document 110 [the resource]
or use of index file 155 to obtain XML document 110” (Reply Br. 2).
Pepper repeatedly teaches joint management of a resource and its
embedded data (e.g., joint archival (col. 5, ll. 46 – 48), joint retention
management (col. 5, ll. 51 – 52), and joint retrieval (col. 3, ll. 65 – 67) of a
resource, an XML document, and its embedded data, the XML document’s
associated resources). Pepper teaches placing information about the
resource’s embedded data in an index file so “that the data can later be
retrieved with ease, for example by customer name” (col. 5, ll. 64 – 67).
Pepper also teaches “receiving a search request to retrieve an archived
Appeal 2009-006980
Application 10/780,833

4
[XML] document” (col. 3, ll. 61 – 62). Thus, to an artisan of ordinary skill,
Pepper would have taught or suggested placing information about the
resource (which is jointly managed with the resource’s embedded data) in
the index file (to make it easier . . .) and using the index file in obtaining the
resource (. . . to respond to a search request for the resource).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1 – 4 and 6 – 27.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Morlitz and
Pepper teaches or suggests obtaining a resource and embedded data using a
resource index file having information about the resource and the embedded
data.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

KMF