Ex Parte LeTourneauDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 23, 201511007139 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2015) 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. 11/007,139 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation