Ex Parte Mital et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2010

10778375 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2010)

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.
10/778,375 02/13/2004 Rohit Mital XAW-0301 7159
25007 7590 07/28/2010
LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING
3595 FOUNTAIN BOULEVARD SUITE A2
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80910
EXAMINER
LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROHIT MITAL and KIRSTAN ANDERSON VANDERSLUIS
____________________

Appeal 2009-0058791
Application 10/778,375
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and JEAN R.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Filed February 13, 2004. The real party in interest is XAware Corp. (App.
Br. 3.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1 through 20. (App. Br. 4.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method for converting an input data stream of a
first format into an output data stream of a second format. (Spec. 1, ll. 6-8,
spec. 6, l. 3.) As shown in Appellants’ Figures 1 and 3, upon receiving a
first instance of a repeating structure (52, 54, 56, 58) for the input data
stream (20), a data conversion system (24) uses a conversion file to
transform the first repeating structure into an equivalent output data stream
(22). The data conversion repeats the conversion for each subsequent
instance of the input data structure until they are all converted into
equivalent output data structure. (Id., ll. 4-19.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method of streaming conversion from a first data structure to a
second data structure, comprising the steps of:

a) receiving a reference to an input data stream in the first data
structure for conversion;

Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

3
b) receiving a document conversion file that converts data in the first
data structure to data in the second data structure;

c) receiving a repeating structure definition;

d) executing the document conversion file; and

e) streaming each instance of a repeating structure.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Cseri US 6,708,164 B1 Mar. 16, 2004
(filed Mar. 17, 2000)

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Cseri.
2. Claims 8, 9, 12 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Cseri.

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Cseri does not teach receiving a reference to
an input data stream in a first data structure, as recited in independent claim
1. (App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 1.) In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that
Cseri’s disclosure of a rowset obtained from a query processor is not an
Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

4
input data stream, but an output data stream. (App. Br. 7.) However, in the
Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Cseri’s rowset is not a data stream at all.
(Reply Br. 1.)

Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Cseri’s rowset generated by the query
processor is also an input data stream since it constitutes the input data
stream entering the rowset processor, which converts the input data stream
into an eXtensible Markkup language (XML) hierarchical rowset. (Ans. 8.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Cseri
teaches receiving a reference to an input data stream in a first data structure,
as recited in independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
Cseri
1. Cseri discloses a computerized method and system for
transforming the results of a query into a hierarchical data stream such as
XML. (Abst.)
Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

5
2. As shown in Figure 2, upon receiving a query from a user (203), a
query processor (207) generates a rowset, which is subsequently input into a
rowset processor (209) to generate a hierarchical rowset. (Id.)
3. As shown in Figure 3, the rowset (209) processor includes
nested XML data auto1 and auto2 modules that are invoked to convert the
received rowset into nested trees (309, 310), which define the XML data
stream. (Col. 6, ll. 20-26, ll. 35-37.)

IV. ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 11, 13-17
Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, receiving a reference to
an input data stream in a first data structure. (App. Br. 14, Claims App’x.)
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Cseri discloses using a
rowset processor to transform an input rowset into a hierarchical data stream
(FF. 1) or a hierarchical rowset (FF. 2). We note that Cseri utilizes the terms
rowset and data stream interchangeably. Therefore, we find that the rowset
is a data stream. Further, since the rowset is input into the rowset processor,
we find that the rowset amounts to an input data stream. It follows that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Cseri
teaches the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-6, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17, Appellants reiterate the
same arguments raised for the patentability of claim 1. (App. Br. 7-9.)
These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in our
Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

6
discussion of claim 1 above. Therefore, claims 4-6, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17
fall with claim 1 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claim 7, Appellants argue that Cseri does not teach a
document component file called by the document conversion file to handle
multiple repeating structures in a single conversion file. (App. Br. 7-8.)
According to Appellants, Cseri is silent as to whether the rowset processor
can handle different repeating structures in a single instance. (Id.) We
defined in that dependent claim, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v).3
We further note that Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim, which merely requires the document conversion file to
reference a component conversion file. Additionally, we find that Cseri
teaches the component conversion file as the auto module that is referenced
by the rowset processor (i.e. the document conversion file) to transform the
input rowset/data stream into the hierarchical rowset/data stream (FF. 3).
Consequently, we find that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Appellants reiterate similar arguments to those
raised for patentability of claim 7 above. (App. Br. 8-9.) We find for the
same reasons detailed in our discussion of claim 7 above that Cseri’s
disclosure teaches the document component file recited in claim 14.
Consequently, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.

3 The Brief should contain a concise explanation for the subject matter of
each dependent claim argued separately.
Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

7
Claims 2 and 3
Appellants have not argued or even attempted to traverse the rejection
of claims 2 and 3. Therefore, such arguments are waived. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Obviousness
Claims 8-9
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice was
improper since the Patent Office failed to provide an affidavit asserting that
receiving reference to files is well-known in the art for executing code
contained in the files. (App. Br. 9-10.) In response, the Examiner submits
that Appellants challenge for the first time in the Appeal Brief the Official
Notice taken in a non-final action. (Ans. 9.) Further, the Examiner provides
dictionary definitions as evidence that a driver conversion file is well-known
in the art as asserted in the rejection. (Id. at 10.) We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants’ challenge of the Official Notice for the first time
in the Brief is untimely. Further, Appellants have failed to present any
authority to support the allegation that the Official Notice is ineffective since
it is not presented in the form of an Affidavit. Additionally, Appellants have
failed to specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action,
which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be
Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

8
common knowledge or well-known in the art in accordance with MPEP §
2144.03(C). See also 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) (2005). In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d
711, 713 (CCPA 1943). Consequently, we find that Appellants have failed
to adequately traverse the Examiner's taking of Official Notice that the use
of a driver conversion file is well-known in the art for the purpose of
executing codes contained in a file. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-9.

Claims 12 and 18-20
Appellants reiterate the same arguments raised for patentability of
claims 7 and 14 above. (App. Br. 10.) As previously discussed, Cseri’s
rowset processor includes auto modules, which it calls to transform an input
data stream into an output data stream. Consequently, we find that the auto
modules teach the document component file as recited in claims 12, 18-20.
We will therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-17 as being anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
2. Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 8, 9, 12, and 18-20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-005879
Application 10/778,375

9
VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 20.
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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

rwk

LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING
3595 FOUNTAIN BOULEVARD SUITE A2
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80910