Ex Parte Rajamani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12576140 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
12/576,140 10/08/2009 Kumar Rajamani 50277-3709 1462
42425 7590 04/04/2017
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard PARK, GRACE A
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUMAR RAJAMANI, HOCHAK HUNG, JAEBOCK LEE, and
PHILIP YAM
Appeal 2015-007298
Application 12/576,140
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
INTRODUCTION
Appellants’ Request for Rehearing (“Request”), filed January 31,
2017, contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered December
02, 2016, in which we affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 12-17, 24-30, 37,
and 38, and reversed the rejection of claims 18-23 and 31-34.1 Appellants
1 Claims 2—11, 35, and 36 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2015-007298
Application 12/576,140
assert error in the Board’s affirmance of the rejection of claims 12—17, 28,
and 30.
OPINION
We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellants’ arguments
in the Request, and are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked
any points in rendering our Decision. We decline to change or modify our
prior Decision for the reasons discussed infra.
Principles of Law
37 CFR 41.37(c)( 1 )(vii) states, in pertinent part: “A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”
Analysis
Claims 15-17
Appellants assert that the Board mischaracterized Appellants’
arguments with respect to these claims as not being separate arguments from
those advanced with respect to parent claim 1. Req. for Reh’g 3.
We are not persuaded that Appellants actually presented a separate
argument. In the Brief, with respect to claim 15, Appellants complained that
“the Examiner is citing general object-oriented principles,” and assert that
the Examiner “ignores the recital that the ‘semantics defined by the
mapping type . . . causes performing the operation on the root. . . and
performing the operation on each mapped object.’” App. Br. 15-16.
Appellants then argue that Bernstein does not “teach, disclose or render any
semantics defined by a mapping type for the operation.” Id. With respect
to claim 16, Appellants argue that “Bernstein does not teach or disclose any
‘mapping type defining semantics of one or more operations.’” App. Br.
2
Appeal 2015-007298
Application 12/576,140
16. With respect to claim 17, Appellants argue that “Bernstein does not
teach or disclose any ‘mapping type defining semantics of one or more
operations.’” App. Br. 17.
We do not regard Appellants’ arguments here as being separate from
its claim 1 arguments, because the arguments are directed entirely to the
language that appears in independent claim 1, rather than limitations recited
in dependent claims 15—17. Appellants’ claim 1 arguments were directed to
the limitation “determining one or more actions to perform based on the
semantics of the operation defined by the mapping type of the mapped
object handle.” App. Br. 14. “No semantics of any operation are defined
by any mapping type in Bernstein. No mapping type is described as part of
an object handle representing an object in Bernstein.” Id. As noted supra,
Appellants’ claims 15—17 arguments are also directed to the semantics of
one or more operations, and to performing actions.
It is thus clear that Appellants, although purporting to argue claims
15—17 separately, attempted to re-argue the limitations presented in parent
claim 1. On this record, Appellants have not persuaded us that we
misapprehended the content of Appellants’ arguments.
Claims 12 and 30
Appellants contend that the Board misapprehended the arguments put
forth regarding claims 12 and 20, erroneously concluding that Appellants did
not present separate argument. See Req. for Reh’g 3^4.
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. Appellants purport to have
argued these claims separately, but the substance of their remarks in the
Brief assert that “[t]he Examiner has failed to find a meaningful equivalent
of a mapping type as recited in the claims .... None of these references
3
Appeal 2015-007298
Application 12/576,140
[Bernstein, Chiu, Ozbutun] disclose a mapping type, selected from a
plurality of mapping types, each of the plurality of mapping types defining
semantics of one or more operations on the mapped object.” App. Br. 19.
The claim language “a mapping type selected from a plurality of mapping
types, each of the plurality of mapping types defining semantics of one or
more operations on the mapped object” is a direct quotation of claim 1, from
which claim 12 depends.2 On this record, Appellants have not persuaded us
we misapprehended the content of Appellants’ arguments.
Claims 13,14, and 28
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument that the Board
misapprehended an alleged separate argument for the patentability of these
claims. Appellants’ remarks at pages 19—22 of the Brief amount to no more
than a restatement of the claim language, followed by a blanket statement
that none of Bernstein, Kaakani, or Attaluri teach or suggest the particular
language, followed by another quotation of the particular claim language.
Appellants’ remarks make no attempt to point out how or why the claims
patentably distinguish over the prior art. Thus, the rejection of claims 13,
14, and 28 is maintained, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 in the Decision.
We therefore conclude that Appellants have not shown any points
which we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision.
2 Dependent claim 30 contains limitations analogous to claim 12, and
depends from independent claim 29, which is highly similar to claim 1.
4
Appeal 2015-007298
Application 12/576,140
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have granted Appellants’ request for rehearing to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision affirming the rejection of
claims 12—17, 28, and 30, but we decline to modify the decision in any way.
REHEARING DENIED
5