Ex Parte LeTourneau

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2015

11007139 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2015)

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.
11/007,139 12/07/2004 Jack J. LeTourneau 151.P002 8887
43831 7590 07/24/2015
BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP
17933 NW Evergreen Parkway, Suite 250
BEAVERTON, OR 97006
EXAMINER
LE, JESSICA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2015 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 JACK J. LETOURNEAU
____________

Appeal 2013-001264
Application 11/007,139
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 11, 13–16, 18–25, 27, 30, 31, 42, 44–47, 49–54,
56, 57, 59, 60, 71,73–76, 78–84, 86, 89, 90, 98, 100–103, 105–109, 111,114,
115, and 126–146.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Claims 1–10, 12, 17, 26, 28, 29, 32–41, 43, 48, 55, 58, 61–70, 72, 77, 85,
87, 88, 91–97, 99, 104, 110, 112, 113, and 116–125 have been canceled.
Appeal 2013-001262
Application 11/007,139

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Exemplary claim 11 under appeal reads as follows:
11. A method of solving an edge or node labeled tree
expression comprising:
applying algebraic manipulations via a processor to
reduce one or more labeled tree expressions represented by one
or more electrical signals to one or more interrelated queries,
said one or more labeled tree expressions comprising an
algebraic expression comprising at least one algebraic value
representing a tree.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 11, 13–16, 18–25, 27, 30, 31, 42, 44–47, 49–54, 56, 57, 59,
60, 71,73–76, 78–84, 86, 89, 90, 98, 100–103, 105–109, 111,114, 115, and
126–146 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
LeTourneau (US 6,055,537; Apr. 25, 2000) and Wilkinson (US 2002/
0149604 A1; Oct. 17, 2002). (See Ans. 5–16.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 11 and 25
In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner relies on LeTourneau for
disclosing the recited method of solving an edge or node labeled tree
expression including applying algebraic manipulations via a processor and
further relies on Wilkinson for disclosing the recited ‘“an algebraic
expression comprising at least one algebraic value representing a tree’ . . . ”
(see Ans. 5–6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine LeTourneau with Wilkinson in
Appeal 2013-001262
Application 11/007,139

3
order to improve the way the data is manipulated and represented by
graphics, such as a binary tree (Ans. 7 (citing Wilkinson, ¶ 13)).
The Examiner further provides a comprehensive response, supported
by sufficient evidence based on the teachings of LeTourneau and Wilkinson,
to each of the contentions raised by Appellant. 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 Appellant’s contentions (see Ans. 18–22).
However, we highlight the following for emphasis.
First Argument
Appellant contends the applied references do not teach or suggest a
node or edge labeled tree expression as described in the instant Specification
(App. Br. 18–21). Appellant asserts “the term tree expression has an
understood meaning in the application . . . consistent with common usage in
the relevant art” which is not recognized by any of the references relied on
by the Examiner (id. at 22).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. Initially, we observe that Appellant’s contentions focus on the
features that are not recited in claim 11 and therefore, are not commensurate
with the scope of the claim (see also Ans. 22). Further, we agree with the
Examiner that the data structure disclosed in LeTourneau is represented as
an edge labeled tree, which is represented by sequences of displayed
symbols (see Ans. 19–21 (citing LeTourneau, col. 7, ll. 1–46)). Therefore,
contrary to Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 6–9), the disclosed sequence of
displayed symbols meets the recited tree expression.
Appeal 2013-001262
Application 11/007,139

4
Second Argument
Appellant further contends the proposed combination of references
does not teach or suggest “solving an edge or node labeled tree expression”
recited in claim 11 or “determining one or more conditions which make an
expression in unordered edge or node labeled trees true or false . . . ,” as
recited in claim 25 (App. Br. 31–34). Additionally, Appellant argues the
recited limitations related to “reducing” or “applying algebraic
manipulations” are not taught or suggested by the combination of
LeTourneau and Wilkinson (App. Br. 35–37). In response, the Examiner
explains different portions in LeTourneau disclose solving an edge or node
labeled tree expression and the recited conditions of that expression (see
Ans. 23–25).
We also agree with these findings and conclusions, and observe that,
as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 24), the specific features related to
repeatedly applying a set of algebraic manipulation or reducing to another
tree expression are not recited in the claims. As such, Appellant’s
arguments based on the specific examples from Appellant’s Specification
are not persuasive of the Examiner’s error because they are not
commensurate with the scope of claims 11 and 25 (see Reply Br. 6–21).
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 25–27) that the processes
disclosed in LeTourneau, including manipulation algebra, mathematical
approach, reduction, and duplicate elimination meet the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim terms related to reducing and algebraic
manipulation.
Appeal 2013-001262
Application 11/007,139

5
Third Argument
Appellant contends the applied prior art does not teach or suggest “an
algebraic expression comprising at least one algebraic value representing a
tree” (App. Br. 48). Appellant specifically refers to different parts of the
Specification for examples of such algebraic expressions and concludes such
expressions are missing from the cited references (see App. Br. 48–53). The
Examiner responds by identifying the relevant teachings in LeTourneau and
Wilkinson and concludes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
term “algebraic expressions” would not include the additional details from
Appellant’s Specification and are therefore met by the cited prior art (Ans.
32–33). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own.
Fourth Argument
Appellant contends one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able
to produce the claimed subject matter, the proposed combination is not
based on any motivation or suggestion, and the proposed combination would
not allow each element to perform the same function as it does separately,
and the Examiner’s proposed combination is improper (App. Br. 54–74; see
also Reply Br. 22–24).
We observe that Appellant’s contentions focus on the references
separately and ignore the fact that the proposed rejection is based on the
combination of LeTourneau and Wilkinson. We must point out, however,
that all of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)) and the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
Appeal 2013-001262
Application 11/007,139

6
independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
As found by the Examiner (Ans. 6 and 34), using the detailed
algebraic expressions taught by Wilkinson in the binary tree data structure of
LeTourneau would have increased the efficiency and flexibility of data
structure manipulation and processing (see, e.g., Wilkinson ¶¶ 13, 53, and
61–102; LeTourneau cols. 5–7). In other words, the improvement is
achieved by applying Wilkinson’s algebraic expression representing data
sets to the data structure of LeTourneau, which is represented as an edge or
node labeled tree. Additionally, we find that the Examiner’s proposed
combination is proper because the Examiner has articulated how the claimed
features are met by the proposed combination of the reference teachings with
some rational underpinning consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see Ans. 5–6 and 34).
Claims 13, 14, and 16
Appellant contends the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest the features recited in claims 13, 14, and 16 because LeTourneau
does not disclose binary edge labeled trees (App. Br. 26–29). The Examiner
explains different portions in columns 7, 9, and 10 of LeTourneau disclose
an edge labeled tree and the representation of labeled trees as binary or
balanced binary trees (Ans. 23–25). Because we agree with these findings
and conclusions, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
13, 14, and 16.
Remaining Claims
Appellant argues the patentability of the remaining claims based on
arguments similar to those presented for claims 11, 13,14, 16, and 25, and
Appeal 2013-001262
Application 11/007,139

7
further asserts the combination of LeTourneau and Wilkinson does not teach
or suggest the claim limitations related to tree reducing expressions, basic
expressions, algebra of labeled tree expressions, and rooted partial subtree
(App. Br. 38–47). For the same reasons stated above we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own (see Ans.
27–32).

CONCLUSION
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of LeTourneau and Wilkinson teaches or
suggests the disputed claim limitations. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 11, 13–16, 18–25, 27, 30, 31, 42,
44–47, 49–54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 71,73–76, 78–84, 86, 89, 90, 98, 100–103,
105–109, 111,114, 115, and 126–146.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 11, 13–16, 18–25, 27,
30, 31, 42, 44–47, 49–54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 71,73–76, 78–84, 86, 89, 90, 98,
100–103, 105–109, 111,114, 115, and 126–146 is affirmed.
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
kme