Ex Parte Rutten et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2013

10546316 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARTIJN JOHAN RUTTEN, JOSEPHUS THEODORUS VAN
EIJNDHOVEN, and EVERT-JAN DANIEL POL
____________________

Appeal 2010-012037
Application 10/546,316
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012037
Application 10/546,316

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claims 1 and 9 under appeal, with emphases
added, read as follows:
1. A data processing system, comprising:
at least a first processing element and a second processing element for
processing a stream of data objects, the first processing element being
arranged to pass data objects from the stream of data objects to the second
processing element,
wherein the first and the second processing elements are
arranged for execution of an application, the application comprising a
set of tasks, and
wherein at least one of the first and the second processing elements is
arranged to be responsive to the receipt of a unique identifier, characterized
in that,
the stream of data objects further comprises the unique identifier, and
that the first processing element is further arranged to pass the unique
identifier to the second processing element.

1 Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed by
Appellants on April 1, 2010 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
June 21, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed by Appellants on August
23, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-012037
Application 10/546,316

3
9. A data processing system according to claim 1, characterized in that
the stream of data objects comprises:
a plurality of packets, the plurality of packets arranged to store data
objects; and
a dedicated packet, the dedicated packet arranged to store the unique
identifier.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ducateau (US 5,506,963). Ans. 3-8.

Issue
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the following anticipation issue is
presented:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-18 as being anticipated
because Ducateau fails to disclose, inherently or necessarily, the data
processing system and method of controlling a data processing system
including the limitations at issue in claims 1-18?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-11) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-13) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. With regard to the
anticipation rejection of claims 1-18, we adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-18). We concur
Appeal 2010-012037
Application 10/546,316

4
with the findings of the Examiner with regard to Ducateau, and we agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 8 and 18) that Ducateau discloses organizing and
storing data objects into different units based on various parameters, and
thus inherently discloses packetizing, as set forth in claims 9 and 18.
A review of the entire Ducateau reference (including columns 2, 6,
and 17 and Figure 4 relied upon by the Examiner) reveals that packets of
data are inherent and necessarily present with the Ducateau system, given
the discussion at multiple locations of time slices, during which certain
actions take place. As the time is sliced, it is clear that Ducateau cannot be
said to be operating on a continuous stream of data, and hence the data must
be chopped into segments, or “packets” based on parameters. Furthermore,
we note that Appellants do not define “packet” and simply use the term as
common in the art of data communications systems.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ducateau.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ducateau is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-012037
Application 10/546,316

5

tkl