Ex Parte Loeser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201613239695 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/239,695 09/22/2011 45725 7590 09/09/2016 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC 17304 Preston Road Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75252 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Henrik Loeser 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. SVL920030077US4 7063 EXAMINER ALAM, SHAHID AL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2016 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 HENRIK LOESER, ROBBERT C. VAN DER LINDEN, and BRIANS. VICKERY Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 Technology Center 2100 Before DENISE M. POTHIER, LARRY J. HUME, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 15, 17-21, 24, 26, and 27. 1 App. Br. 1 (referring to March 18, 2013 Notice of Appeal). Claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed December 19, 2012, Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed May 14, 2013, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed August 16, 2013, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 16, 2013. Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 22, 23, and 25 have been objected to but would otherwise be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims. Final Act. 12; Ans. 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse but present a new ground pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Invention Appellants' invention relates to a "method and system for processing structured documents stored in a database." See Spec. i-f 7. Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 1. A method for processing a structured document, the method compnsmg: identifying a plurality of strings processed by a database; assigning an identifier to each of the plurality of strings; storing each of the plurality of strings and its assigned identifier in a table in the database, wherein at least one string of the plurality of strings in the table in the database is derived from a source other than the structured documents stored in the database, and wherein at least another string of the plurality of strings in the table in the database is derived from the one or more structured documents stored in the database; and utilizing the table during document processing. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Gautam Shadmon Najork us 5,956, 704 US 6,804,677 B2 US 2004/0210826 Al The Rejections Sept. 21, 1999 Oct. 12, 2004 Oct. 21, 2004 Claims 1, 9, 10, 18, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Shadmon. Final Act. 7-8. Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shadmon and Gautam. Final Act. 9-11. 2 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 Claims 8, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shadmon and Najork. Final Act. 11-12. ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER SHADMON Among other arguments, Appellants contend Shadmon fails to teach "storing each of the plurality of strings and its assigned identifier in a table in the database, wherein at least one string of the plurality of strings in the table in the database is derived from a source other than the structured documents stored in the database." App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants assert Shadmon's token dictionary only has strings derived from structured documents and not from another source as recited. App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner determines Shadmon teaches this disputed "storing" step and "wherein" clause in several passages in Shadmon. Final Act. 8 (citing Shadmon 11 :57-59, 14: 1-7, Fig. 4); Ans. 9-10 (citing Shadmon, Figs. 1-3). ISSUE Under§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Shadmon discloses "storing each of the plurality of strings and its assigned identifier in a table in the database, wherein at least one string of the plurality of strings in the table in the database is derived from a source other than the structured documents stored in the database"? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner relies on the summary description of Figure 4 (11 :57-59) and a discussion of a token dictionary to teach the 3 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 disputed limitations. Final Act. 8. Shadmon discusses that Figure 4 is a token dictionary for encoding strings. Shadmon 11 :57-59, Fig. 4. The Examiner maps the tag names and attributes discussed in Shadmon to the recited "plurality of strings." See Final Act. 7 (citing Shadmon 13:12-14). The Examiner also maps Shadmon's tokens (e.g., shown in Figures 3 and 4) to the recited "identifier." Final Act. 8 (citing Shadmon 11:53-56, which discusses replacing tags and attributes with tokens). For example, Figures 1through4 show tag names (e.g., Invoice and Buyer) and attributes (e.g., Count and Discount) are extracted from XML document 10 (e.g., a structure document) to build the token dictionary. Shadmon 11:50, 12:24, 45--46, 55-58, 13:59---67. As such, Shadmon teaches its tag and attribute entries mapped by the Examiner to the recited "plurality of strings," are derived from a structure document as recited and are stored in token dictionary 40, which is shown as a table in Figure 4. The Examiner further determines that a cited passage in column 14 of Shadmon (Final Act. 8; Ans. 9-10) teaches the disputed limitations, including "wherein at least one string of the plurality of strings in the table in the database is derived from a source other than the structure documents." App. Br. 23, Claims App'x (italics added). As presented and based on the record, we disagree. Although not limited by the disclosure, we tum to its discussion for a better understanding of the phrase "derived from a source other than the structure documents." The Specification describes table 200 can include "strings found in sources other than stored documents," such as "'constructed' elements and attributes." Spec. ,-r 26. For example, a query can introduce new element and attribute names based on a new document 4 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 created from the result of the query." Id. With this understanding, we tum to Shadmon and cited column 14. Here, Shadmon states that token dictionary 40 in Figure 4 is constructed by assigning each tag or attribute (i.e., the mapped "strings" according to the Examiner) found in a document with a token (i.e., the mapped "identifiers" according to the Examiner) from the dictionary. Shadmon 13:9-14, 14:1-3, Fig. 4, cited in Final Act. 7-8. Shadmon further explains that the each tag or attribute is assigned a token as shown in Figure 4, but if a tag type is not in the token dictionary, a new token is created. Shadmon 14:3-7. In particular, Shadmon teaches creating a new identifier (e.g., a token as mapped by the Examiner)-not a string-when the string (e.g., a tag as mapped by the Examiner) is not in the dictionary. Id. This passage fails to address that a string (e.g., a tag or attribute as mapped by the Examiner) in Shadmon's table is created or derived from a source other than the structured document itself (e.g., the discussed XML document). Shadmon 11 :50-60, 13:9-16, 13:59-14:7. This precise issue was raised by Appellants. App. Br. 5 (stating "Shadmon fails to teach that the token dictionary includes at least one string that is not derived from one or more structured documents stored in the database ... [T]he strings in the token dictionary are obtained directly from the XML tree structure for the document"); see also App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3--4 (noting that "the Examiner still has not shown a specific teaching in Shadmon to the effect that tokens in the token dictionary are derived from a source other than the structured documents stored in a database.") Responding to these arguments, the Examiner repeats the discussion in column 14 (see Ans. 10) and additionally explains that Shadmon teaches a 5 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 relational database (Ans. 9). However, these discussions do not explain how at least one string in Shadmon's table (e.g., tags or attributes in dictionary 40 shown in Figure 4) is derived from "a source other than the structure documents," as recited. The Examiner further states that Shadmon' s invention indexes data into strings "in a way that maintains non-structural and structural information about the XML data." Ans. 9. But, the Examiner fails to elaborate on this information, focusing on the characteristic of a relational database in general. See Ans. 9-10. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 10 and 19, which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 9, 18, and 27 for similar reasons. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shadmon and Gautam (Final Act. 9-11); claims 8, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shadmon and Najork (Final Act. 11-12). Appellants state that the distinctions presented for claim 1 are applicable to the claims rejected under obviousness. See App. Br. 12, 20. Because these claims depend from independent claims 1, 10, or 19, we agree. Moreover, Appellants argues that Gautam and Najork do not solve the noted deficiencies. App. Br. 12-13, 20. Because the Examiner's rejections do not rely upon Gautam or Najork to cure the above missing deficiency (Final Act. 9-12), we will not sustain these rejections. According, 6 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, and 26. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION Pursuant to our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shadmon. As noted above, the limitation in contention is the recited "wherein" clause that claims "at least one string of the plurality of strings in the table in the database is derived from a source other than the structured documents stored in the database." Although we noted above that Shadmon's cited passage in column 14 fails to teach this feature, other portions of Shadmon teach or suggest this limitation. As stated above, Shadmon teaches creating a token dictionary (e.g., 40) shown as a table in Figure 4, from an XML document. Shadmon 11:50-59, 13:18-26, 13:50-14:7, Figs. 1--4. In Figure 4, the tags and attributes (e.g., strings) are identified from an XML document (e.g., a structure document) and are assigned respective tokens (e.g., identifiers). Shadmon 13:10-26, 14:1-7, Fig. 4. Shadmon also illustrates that the tags and attributes and their respective identifiers are stored or are known to be stored in tables, such as Shadmon's Figure 4, of a database. See Shadmon 1:22-23, 43--44, 4:51-56, Fig. 4. Moreover, Shadmon teaches relational databases are known by ordinarily skilled artisans to store XML data and relational mappings of XML. Shadmon 7:13-14, 8:1-2, 10-13. As such, Shadmon teaches that one skilled in the art would have known and recognized to store XML and related data, including the strings and the respective identifiers in Shadmon's table as shown in Figure 4, in a database. 7 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 Additionally, as stated above, Shadmon teaches that the XML data comes from the XML document. Shadmon 13:59-14:7. However, Shadmon further discusses maintaining "non-structural and structural information" about the XML data. Shadmon, Abstract. For example, Shadmon states the semi-structured data can be represented as "string information" (e.g., information about tags and attributes), such as "information [that] comes directly from the original data and ... information [that] comes from the token dictionary." Shadmon 16:27-32. We determine this passage suggests to one skilled in the art that the process can include identifying strings, and the string information found in tables of a database can come from "a source other than the structure documents" (e.g., source other than the original data) as recited. This is further illustrated by Shadmon in Figure 6 and its accompanying discussion. Shadmon 11 :65----67, Fig. 6. Shadmon states the resulting strings (e.g., tags or attributes) of a table include an "XML path string." Shadmon 16:62----67, Fig. 6. As an example, Shadmon includes a string labeled as ""ABFABCCorp." where the string "ABCCorp." comes from the XML document in Figure 1 but the "ABF" portion of the string comes from the created path string, such as that shown in Figure 3. See Shadmon, Fig. 6. Shadmon thus teaches and suggests to one skilled in the art embodiments where the string in a table is derived "from a source other than the structured document," as recited. Moreover, to the extent the claim requires that string and identifier data are in a single table, Shadmon teaches "[t]here are potentially numerous representations of the token dictionary." Shadmon 13:59----61. We further determine that one skilled in the art would have recognized including such 8 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 string information within the Figure 4 embodiment would have organized the data efficiently to contain relevant data within a single table of a relational database. Appellants assert the dictionary's tokens and strings in Shadmon are not part of a database. App. Br. 5. We are not persuaded for the reasons stated previously. Moreover, we also note claim 1 recites storing the strings in a table "in the database." In any event, we explained above how one skilled in the art would have recognized Shadmon's table that includes strings (e.g., Figs. 4, 6) is within a database. We are also not persuaded that Shadmon fails to teach a "global dictionary." App. Br. 7. Notably, the language of "global" dictionary or database is absent from claim 1. Rather, claim 1 recites "a table" and "a database." App. Br. 23, Claims App'x. Also, although the disclosure discusses an example of "a database-global table" (Spec. i-f 22), we will not import such a limitation into claim 1, where is as here, no such limitation exists. Appellants further argue Shadmon teaches that a token dictionary is tied to the particular document and is for the single document with whose XML tree it is associated. App. Br. 5, 7. We are not persuaded for the above reasons. However, to extent that this argument concerns Shadmon dealing with a single document and not multiple documents, we are not persuaded. First, we note claim 1 recites "[a] method for processing a structured document." App. Br. 23 (italics added), Claims App'x. Shadmon later recites "the structured documents" and "the one or more structured documents."2 Id. (italics added). Thus, at least some of the claim is directed 2 Given the inconsistencies in the claim, the recitations to "the structured documents" and "one or more structured documents" suggest a lack of 9 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 to processing a single document. Moreover, we further determine that one skilled in the art would have appreciated, when accounting for the creative steps and inferences that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have employed, applying Shadmon's technique to multiple XML documents to generate a more comprehensive table. We apply the above analysis to claims 10 and 19, which include similar recitations to those found in independent claim 1. For those limitations not disputed by Appellants, we adopt the Examiner findings and conclusions. Final Act. 7-8. Accordingly, claims 1, 10,3 and 19 are obvious over Shadmon. Although we decline to reject every claim under our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we emphasize that our decision does not mean that the remaining claims are necessarily patentable. Rather, we leave the patentability determination of these claims to the Examiner. See MPEP § 1213.02. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 15, 17-21, 24, 26, and27. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). antecedent basis in the claim, calling into question the claim's compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112. 3 Should prosecution continue prosecution the Examiner should consider whether the "computer readable storage medium" in claim 10 is patent- eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential). 10 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also provides: When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01. 11 Appeal2014-001201 Application 13/239,695 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)(l )(iv). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation