Ex Parte Richard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

11188095 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PHILIPPE RICHARD
____________________

Appeal 2011-003194
Application 11/188,095
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003194
Application 11/188,095

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
18-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an adaptive data transformation engine.
Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
18. A method comprising:
transmitting a data stream and transformation code as
separate streams by a solution manifold for receipt by a client
system, the data stream is encoded using one or more metatags
and the transformation code describes manipulation to be
performed at points identified by the one or more metatags in
the data stream to convert the data stream into transformed
information; and
producing active code, by the solution manifold, that is to
be executed as part of the transformation code based on
feedback received from the client system, the active code is
executable to revise analysis operations performed by the
solution manifold through execution of the transformation code.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Teague US 5,136,291 Aug. 4, 1992
Kuznetsov US 2001/0056504 A1 Dec. 27, 2001

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 18-30 and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kuznetsov. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-003194
Application 11/188,095

3
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuznetsov and Teague. Ans. 9.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION1
“Kuznetsov does not [disclose] ‘feedback,’ much less ‘producing
active code ... based on feedback received from the client system,’ as recited
in claim 18.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-12)
and Reply Brief (Reply 4-7) the issue presented on appeal is whether
Kuznetsov’s teaching of optimizing a data translator as further transactions
or exchanges are processed to generate a more specialized translator
discloses the disputed limitation of “producing active code ... based on
feedback received from the client system” as required by claim 18.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting the independent claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kuznetsov. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusions as to these rejections of the claims.
The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“feedback” consistent with Appellant’s Specification is “information that is
passed subsequent to a prior exchange or transaction.” Ans. 12. The

1 We note Appellant presents an additional contention of error (App. Br. 12-
15 and 31-34) but we do not reach it as our resolution of this contention is
dispositive of the appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
Appeal 2011-003194
Application 11/188,095

4
Examiner further finds that in situations wherein Kuznetsov describes (i)
automatically and dynamically optimizing a data translator compiler engine
as further transactions of exchanges proceed to generate a more specialized
translator and (ii) incorporating a new checksum in subsequent operations
that “[i]n those situations the ‘client system’ provides ‘feedback’ to that is
subsequently used to revise and refine the active code analysis being
performed.” Id. We disagree. We find that the Examiner’s construction of
the term “feedback” is unreasonably broad and is inconsistent with the
Specification. .
While Appellant’s Specification does not provide an explicit
definition for the term “feedback”, Appellant contends that a dictionary
definition would be recognized by a skilled artisan to include “part of a
system output presented at its input” or “the return to the input of part of the
output of a machine, system, or process (as for producing changes in an
electronic circuit that improve performance or in an automatic control device
that provide self-corrective action).” Reply Br. 5 (citing to
foldoc.org/feedback and www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feedback).2
We find that these definitions are consistent with the use of the term in

2 While Appellant does not provide evidence that the proffered definitions
were applicable at the time the application was filed, we find corresponding
definitions of “feedback” evidencing appropriate dates, e.g., Microsoft
Computer Dictionary, Redmond, Wash: Microsoft Press, 2002 (“the return
of a portion of system output as input to the same system”); McDaniel,
George, IBM Dictionary of Computing, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994
(“the return of part of the output of a machine, process, or system as input to
the computer, especially for self-correcting or control purposes”); and
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical and Computer Engineering, New
York: McGraw-Hill, 2004 (“the return of a portion of the output of a circuit
or device to its input”).
Appeal 2011-003194
Application 11/188,095

5
Appellant’s Specification3 and agree with Appellant that the disputed claim
limitation using the term “feedback” must be construed consistent with those
definitions of the term.
In contrast, while the Examiner finds that Kuznetsov teaches
optimization of the data translator “[a]s further transactions or exchanges
proceed” (Ans. 12 (citing Kuznetsov [0081])), we find no evidence in
Kuznetsov that the optimization is based on “feedback,” i.e, a return of part
of the data translator output to the input. Therefore, we are unable to find
that Kuznetsov discloses the disputed limitation of “producing active code
. . . that is to be executed as part of the transformation code based on
feedback received from the client system” (emphasis added), to support the
anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
For the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 20 and 22 and dependent claims 19, 21, 23-
30 and 33-38. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 31 and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov and
Teague as the Examiner’s application of the Teague reference fails to cure
the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra.

3 See, e.g., Spec. [0049] (“Feedback is provided from the client system 120
back to solution manifold 115. The feedback is the basis of software
adaptation of solution manifold 115.”) and Spec. [0052] (“The solution
manifold 200 is evolutionary in that it constantly revises its own solution
algorithms (analysis operations) based on the feedback it receives from the
client system 215.”).
Appeal 2011-003194
Application 11/188,095

6
CONCLUSION
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject 18-30 and 33-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kuznetsov and to reject 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kuznetsov
and Teague. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
18-38.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18-38 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc