Ex Parte Ravisankar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13080803 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/080,803 04/06/2011 Ravi Ravisankar SVL920110001US1/1021-098 2578
51871 7590 12/30/2016
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAVI RAVISANKAR and ROY A. WOOD JR.
Appeal 2014-007507
Application 13/080,803
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO,
and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first input value associated with a
first data field;
responsive to determining that the first data field is associated with an
equivalence operation, selecting, by the computing device, a second input
value associated with a second data field of a previously transmitted
Appeal 2014-007507
Application 13/080,803
message sent from the computing device, wherein the second input field
corresponds to the first input field;
comparing, by the computing device, the first input value and the
second input value to determine if the first input value and the second input
value are equivalent; and
when the first input value and the second input value are equivalent,
generating, by the computing device, a message that omits the first
input value for the first data field, and
providing, by the computing device, an operator symbol indicating the
equivalence operation to specify that the second input value of the second
data field in the previously transmitted message is to be associated with the
first data field of the message.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as including transitory embodiments.
2. Claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Indeck
(8,069,102 B2, Nov. 29, 2011) in view of Paugstat (US 4,232,375, Nov.
4, 1980).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. §101
because the recitation of a computer readable storage device does not
include transitory embodiments?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
because the prior art does not disclose providing an operator symbol
indicating the equivalence operation?
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. ft101
2
Appeal 2014-007507
Application 13/080,803
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants argument that the specification states at paragraph 57 that a
computer readable storage device includes volatile memories and a volatile
memory is defined as a memory that does not maintain stored content when
the computer is turned off. The Appellants argue that a volatile memory
requires power to maintain information stored in memory and thus, is not a
carrier wave or a propagated signal.
We find that paragraph 57 of the Appellants’ specification discloses
that memory 62 may be described as a computer readable storage medium
and that in some cases the memory is described as volatile memory.
Therefore, we do not agree with the Appellants that the recitation of a
computer readable storage device is a recitation that is limited to volatile
memory. We agree with the Examiner that when the language “computer
readable storage device” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation it
includes both transitory and non-transitory embodiments.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
The Examiner finds that Paugstat discloses providing an operator
symbol indicting an equivalence operation at column 1, line 54 to column 2,
line 4 and in Figures 1, 2, and 4 and corresponding text. The Appellants
argue that Paugstat does not disclose an operator symbol. We agree.
Paragraph 70 of Appellants’ specification discloses that upon
determining that a second input value is the same as a first input value, the
3
Appeal 2014-007507
Application 13/080,803
encoder module generates a message that omits the first input value for the
first data field. Paragraph 71 discloses that upon generating a message that
omits the first input value for the first data field, the encoder module may
proceed to provide an operator symbol indicating an equivalence operation.
The operator symbol may include setting a value of a presence map to a
value that indicates a copy operator.
We find that column 1, line 54 to column 2, line 4 of Paugstat
discloses a data compression apparatus for use in a data terminal device
which includes a counter means for deleting all redundant data characters of
each data message. Paugstat includes a means for comparing preselected
data characters of each succeeding data message with the corresponding
characters of the first data message and for deleting those data characters
when a comparison is found. Paugstat discloses that the device will remove
all information that is the same or common to a previous transaction
message (col. 4,11. 28—31). The Examiner has not directed our attention to a
disclosure in Paugstat that the device provides an operator symbol when this
removal of data is done as is required by claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2—11 dependent therefrom. We will not sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claim 23 for the same reason. We will also not
sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 12 and claims 13—22
dependent therefrom because claim 12 recites a computing device that
provides an operator symbol and the Examiner relies on the analysis
presented for the rejection of claim 1 for addressing this claim. The
Examiner has not directed our attention to a disclosure in Paugstat of a
4
Appeal 2014-007507
Application 13/080,803
device that is capable of providing an operator symbol as required by claim
12.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants argument that Paugstat does not disclose “responsive to
determining that data of the input value is equivalent to data of a previously
transmitted message, applying an equivalence compression technique by the
computing device without user intervention, to generate a message that does
not include the data of the input value” as required by claim 24. Paugstat
discloses that the device deletes all redundant data characters when a
comparison is made (col. 1,11. 64—66). Paugstat also discloses that the
device will remove all information which is the same or common to a
previous transaction message (col. 4,11. 28—31). This is disclosed in
Paugstat as a function of the device and as such is done without user input.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 24.
Claim 25 which is dependent from claim 24 recites the step of
providing an operator symbol. We will not sustain the rejection of this
claims for the same reasons given above for claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 23.
5
Appeal 2014-007507
Application 13/080,803
We affirm the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claim 24.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—23 and 25.
ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6