Ex Parte Knittel et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 21, 201110780833 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation