Ex Parte Kunde et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311175062 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) 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. 11/175,062 07/05/2005 Christoph Kunde P05,0181-01 2561 26574 7590 02/28/2013 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP PATENT DEPARTMENT 233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600 CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473 EXAMINER LOONAN, ERIC T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2189 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2013 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 CHRISTOPH KUNDE and RALF MULLER ____________ Appeal 2010-010386 Application 11/175,062 1 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is FrancotypPostalia GmbH. Appeal 2010-010386 Application 11/175,062 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-12, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to storage and administration of data suitable for franking machines. See Spec., 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for storage and administration of data, using a log memory divided into a first storage region and a second storage region, said first storage region comprising a plurality of sub-regions and having an upper address range containing at least one of said sub- regions and a lower address range containing at least one other of said sub-regions, comprising the steps of: storing data associated with a type of event, upon each successive occurrence of the event, in the first storage region until overflowing a threshold at a transition between sub-regions of the first storage region; after storing said data in said first storage region, copying and compressing first data from at least one sub-region in the lower address range of the first storage region until concluding data compression, to obtain copied and compressed first data; storing the copied and compressed first data in the second storage region; after storing the copied and compressed first data in the second storage region, deleting said first data from said at least one sub-region in the lower address range of the first storage region; and after deleting said first data from said at least one storage region in the lower address range of the first storage region, shifting second data from at least one sub-region in the upper address range of Appeal 2010-010386 Application 11/175,062 3 the first storage region to a sub-region in the lower address range of the first storage region, said shifted data representing last-stored events. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Benveniste (US 6,779,088 B1, issued Aug. 17, 2004). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Claims 1-12 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Benveniste discloses copying and compressing data, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend “that the relevant steps that are performed in the Benveniste et al reference do not involve compressed data in the same sequence as set forth in independent claims 1 and 8 of the present invention” (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend that “the Examiner is relying on the cache memory as allegedly performing all of the steps . . . [s]ince the cache memory in Benveniste contains only uncompressed data, it does not and cannot perform steps relating to compression of data” (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner “notes that the rejection of record associates BENVENISTE’s VUC (virtual uncompressed cache) with the Appeal 2010-010386 Application 11/175,062 4 ‘uncompresssed’ sub-region of applicant’s claimed ‘log memory’, and associates BENVENISTE’s main memory for storage of the compressed data in the claimed ‘log memory’” (Ans. 9-10). We agree with the Examiner. We start by noting that on this record, we find that Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the aforementioned disputed limitation. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Here, Appellants merely contend that Benveniste does not involve compressed data in the same sequence as set forth in independent claims 1 and 8. However, Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding such limitation (see Ans. 4-10). For example, the Examiner found that Benveniste’s VUC is associated with the uncompressed sub-region and Benveniste’s main memory is for storage of the compressed data (see Ans. 10). In other words, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner is not merely relying on Benveniste’s cache memory to form all of the steps, as the Examiner has also identified the main memory. Furthermore, in Benveniste, “the segment K' is read from memory; and, at step 528, the segment K' is compressed and stored back to memory” (col. 5, ll. 62-64). The recited “after storing . . . copying and compressing first data” in claim 1 seems strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Benveniste’s teachings noted supra, and the Examiner’s reliance on this functionality is therefore persuasive. Appeal 2010-010386 Application 11/175,062 5 We decline to examine the claims sua sponte, looking for distinctions over the prior art. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). See also Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009- 004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the disclosure of Benveniste, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-12 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection. 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) . AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation