Ex Parte Nandakumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2016

13467001 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/467,001 05/08/2012
31625 7590 07/22/2016
BAKER BOTTS LLP,
PA TENT DEPARTMENT
98 SAN JACINTO BL VD., SUITE 1500
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sarun Madarakal NANDAKUMAR
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.
016295.4782 9368
EXAMINER
HARPER, ELIY AH STONE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
DLAustinRecordsManagement@BakerBotts.com
tracy.perez@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARUN MADARAKAL NANDAKUMAR,
EVREN BINGOL, YU-TE LIN, and
DANIEL ERNESTO BARRETO
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
Technology Center 2100
Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-33, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Wyse Technology
L.L.C. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
fNVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method and apparatus for searching
non-public data using a single search query. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative
and reads as follows:
1. A method for facilitating real-time searching of nonpublic data
on multiple remote source units using a single search query,
compnsmg:
automatically discovering, by the client device, the
multiple remote source units via an auto discovery module while
obviating identifying locations or addresses of the multiple
remote source units by a user of the client device;
responsive to receiving the single search query,
facilitating provision, to the auto discovery module, of the single
search query directed to the multiple remote source units to
enable searching of non-public data simultaneously on all of the
multiple remote source units based on the single search query
while obviating initiation by the client device of a secure remote
session log-on with each of the multiple remote source units and
obviating mounting of the multiple remote source units onto the
client device; and
in response to facilitating provision of the single search
query, receiving non-public search results in sequence or
simultaneously, wherein each of the non-public search results is
associated with a corresponding one of the multiple remote
source units, wherein each of the non-public search results
comprises one or more file names or folder names;
automatically aggregating, in real-time, the non-public
search results from a plurality of the multiple remote source
units;
automatically ranking, in real-time, the aggregated non-
public search results; and
facilitating displaying, in real-time, the ranked non-public
search results.
2
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
REJECTION
Claims 1-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Spivack et al. (US 2008/0306959; published Dec.
11, 2008) and Velipasaoglu et al. (US 2012/0296743; published Nov. 22,
2012).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Spivack teaches or
suggests all of the limitations of claim 1, except for the "facilitating"
limitation emphasized above and the limitation "in response to facilitating
provision of the single search query," for which the Examiner relied on
Velipasaoglu. Final Act. 2--4 (citing Spivack i-fi-1287, 375, 383, 389, 454,
511, 515, 518, 529; Velipasaoglu i-fi-16, 44, 80).
First, Appellants contend the cited portions of Spivack and
Velipasaoglu do not teach or suggest "responsive to receiving the single
search query, facilitating provision, to the auto discovery module, of the
single search query directed to the multiple remote source units," as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner
"has not even attempted to show" how Velipasaoglu teaches or suggests "the
multiple remote source units" recited in claim 1, and that paragraph 80 of
Velipasaoglu, cited by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest "any subject
matter that is even remotely pertinent to the actual claim language recited in
claim 1, and, thus, cannot properly support an obviousness rejection." Id. at
12. Second, Appellants argue that, because Velipasaoglu sends all user
3
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
queries to a single search engine, the "search engine 230" in Velipasaoglu
does not teach or suggest "the multiple remote source units" recited in claim
1. Id. (citing Velipasaoglu i-f 45).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Appellants attack the Velipasaoglu reference individually, even though the
Examiner relied on the combination of Spivack and Velipasaoglu as
teaching or suggesting the disputed features. Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 4--5. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art."). Appellants argue that paragraph 80 of Velipasaoglu in
isolation does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation, but Appellants'
arguments do not address the entirety of the Examiner's specific findings.
The Examiner found that Spivack teaches or suggests the step of
"automatically discovering, by the client device, the multiple remote source
units via an auto discovery module while obviating identifying locations or
addresses of the multiple remote source units by a user of the client device,"
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Spivack i-fi-1375, 454). We
understand the Examiner's articulated position to be that that Spivack
teaches or suggests the recited "multiple remote source units" (hosted
network nodes). See id.
The Examiner relied on Velipasaoglu in combination with Spivack for
the disputed "facilitating" step recited in claim 1. Id. at 3. We agree with
the Examiner that paragraph 44 and Figure 2 of Velipasaoglu disclose
various databases, such as search history database 260, personalized
database 270, and query database 280. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 5. We also
4
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
observe that paragraph 44 of Velipasaoglu discloses that "a data source may
connect to the network in order to transmit information via the network."
Velipasaoglu i-f 44. We also agree with the Examiner that Figure 2 and
paragraph 80 of Velipasaoglu disclose various types of storage media, such
as those used in computers. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
Appellants disclose in the Specification that remote source units may
include "physical machines," "data source units," and "a database
configured to respond to commands to access data." Spec. 50. Thus, we
find the term "remote source units" recited in claim 1 is not defined so as to
exclude any of the network nodes disclosed in Spivack, nor the databases,
data source, and storage media disclosed in Velipasaoglu.
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants' second argument that,
because Velipasaoglu sends all user queries to a single search engine 230,
Velipasaoglu does not teach or suggest the recited "multiple remote source
units." See App. Br. 12 (citing Velipasaoglu i-f 45). In the paragraph that
follows the paragraph cited by Appellants, Velipasaoglu discloses that the
user query may be routed through search engine 230 to a back end
personalized query engine 240 that "will return any personalized queries
from personalized database 270 and will also collect common queries from
query database 280 via search engine 230 over network 220 to user 210."
Velipasaoglu i-f 46. As discussed above, the term "remote source units"
recited in claim 1 is not defined to exclude personalized database 270 and
query database 280. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that
Valipasaoglu's description of routing all user queries through search engine
230 demonstrates error in the Examiner's findings.
5
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
In the Reply Brief~ Appellants further contend that, because the
personalized query engine 240 in Velipasaoglu first determines whether the
user has a personalized database 270 before performing a query,
Velipasaoglu does not teach or suggest the limitation "enable searching of
non-public data simultaneously on all of the multiple remote source units,"
recited in claim 1. Reply 4; see Velipasaoglu i-f 46. Appellants, however,
have not persuaded us that Velipasaoglu's disclosure of determining whether
the user has a personalized database before searching it somehow means
Velipasaoglu would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill that the
searching of personalized database 270 and query database 280 could not be
simultaneous.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Spivack and Velipasaoglu teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 4, 14, 17, 23, and 27, for which Appellants refer to any
rely on the arguments made for claim 1 and offer no additional arguments.
App. Br. 13-14. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15, 16, 18-22, 24--26, and 28-33, for which Appellants
make no additional arguments. Id.
6
Appeal2015-000733
Application 13/467,001
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7