Ex Parte Melix

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 3, 2012

11480483 (B.P.A.I. May. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PASCAL MELIX
____________

Appeal 2009-015080
Application 11/480,483
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015080
Application 11/480,483

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-18. (App. Br. 3.) Claim 9 was cancelled. (Id.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The Invention
Exemplary independent claim 1 follows:
1. A computer-implemented method of compressing
a data structure containing data content and further containing
at least one content name, using a compression scheme capable
of compressing content names only if the content names include
characters from a restricted character set, the method
comprising:

encoding a content name including a character outside
the restricted character set into a representation using characters
from the restricted character set,

adding a flag file to a directory of the data structure to
flag the data structure as including encoded content names, and

compressing the data structure.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,405,325 B1 (filed Jan. 30,
1999)). (Ans. 2-5.)

Appeal 2009-015080
Application 11/480,483

3
ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that Lin discloses “adding a flag file to a
directory of the data structure to flag the data structure as including encoded
content names,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 16?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Lin does not anticipate claim 1 because it does
not disclose “adding a flag file to a directory of the data structure to flag the
data structure as including encoded content names.” (App. Br. 6.) The
Examiner reasoned that Lin anticipates claim 1 because it discloses a
translation from a Chinese file name to Unicode in a matching table and a
self-defined directory. (Ans. 3-6; citing Lin col. 5, ll. 55-60 and col. 6, ll. 4-
36.) But as explained by Appellant, Lin does not disclose the particular
method of claim 1 in which a name within a data structure is encoded, a flag
file is added to a directory of the data structure that contains an encoded
name, and the data structure is compressed. (App. Br. 6-7.) First, as
explained by Appellant, an entry in a matching table as disclosed in Lin is
not a file. (App. Br. 6-7.) Moreover, the self-defined directory identified by
the Examiner is not a flag file that is added to a data structure before the data
structure is compressed. (Reply Br. 2.) Because the Examiner has not
shown that Lin discloses all the elements of claim 1, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, or the claims that depend from
claim 1. We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
Appeal 2009-015080
Application 11/480,483

4
claim 16 or the claim dependent therefrom because claim 16 also has the
elements which are missing from Lin.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-18.

REVERSED

llw