Ex parte SAYAH et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 1997

08075241 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 1997)

Application for patent filed June 11, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOHN SAYAH, VINOD NARAYANAN,
and PHILIP HONSINGER
____________
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,2411
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, BARRETT and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over prior art.
References Relied on by the Examiner
Liang et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,182,797 Jan. 26, 1993
(Liang)
Lazansky et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,111,413 May 5, 1992
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-2-
(Lazansky)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Liang.
Claims 6-8 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Liang and Lazansky.
The Invention
The invention is directed to an information model comprising
a first data structure containing at its nodes hierarchically
partitioned descriptions of data attributes, and a second data
structure containing at its nodes representations and
specifications of each hierarchical partition in the first data
structure. Each node of the first data structure maps to a node
of the second data structure, and each node of the second data
structure maps to at least one node at a single hierarchical
level of the first data structure. There is also an interface
which encapsulates the first and second data structures from
inquiring application programs.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An information model comprising

a first data structure containing, at respective
nodes, descriptions of physical or abstracted physical
attributes of a spatially partitioned physical
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-3-
structure, said descriptions of physical or abstracted
physical attributes being partitioned hierarchically,
a second data structure containing, at respective
nodes, a nested, compacted, representation of each said
hierarchical partition of said physical or abstracted
physical attributes and specifications of each said
hierarchical partition of said physical or abstracted
physical attributes, and

an interface means for encapsulating said first
and second data structures from inquiring applications

each said node of said first data structure
mapping to a node of said second data structure and
each node of said second data structure mapping to at
least one node at a single hierarchical level of said
first data structure.
Claim 9 is a corresponding method claim.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-14.
Initially, it should be noted that evidently, the examiner
has cited to the same component in Liang as constituting both the
first data structure and the second data structure. In the
examiner's answer at 3, the examiner identifies a first data
structure in Liang and cites to column 4, line 41. Beginning at
that location, Liang reads: "The workstation state list contains
data descriptions and drawing information required by the
workstation to process the application model." It is apparent
that the examiner regards the workstation state list as
constituting the first data structure. Also in the answer at 3,
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-4-
the examiner identifies a second data structure in Liang and
cites to column 8, line 1. Column 8, line 1 of Liang is occupied
by parts of Liang's claim 1 and reads: "a second data structure
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-5-
containing parameters for controlling the processing of the data
contained in the first data structure."
But it is the workstation state list which describes the
necessary processing environment for processing the graphical
data contained in Liang's structure storage unit (column 3, lines
61-63; column 4, lines 41-43). In light of all the claim
features directed to the relationship between the first and the
second data structure, it is plainly inappropriate to read both
data structures on the same part. However, this mistake on the
part of the examiner has not been pointed out by the appellants,
and it is manifestly apparent that Liang does disclose a first
data structure and a second data structure, separate from each
other. In that regard, note that Liang's claim 1 explicitly
recites a first data structure and a second data structure.
Accordingly, we will assume that the examiner has properly
identified Liang's first data structure as the hierarchical
graphical data in the structure storage element, and the second
data structure as including the workstation state list and the
view traversal control block as is recited in Liang's claim 1.
Claim 1 requires that the second data structure contains at
respective nodes thereof a representation and also specifications
of each hierarchical partition of the data attributes stored in
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-6-
the first data structure. The examiner has not accounted for
this claim feature and the appellants have not conceded this
issue. In the appeal brief at page 5, the appellants argued that
there is no teaching or suggestion in Liang that a hierarchy was
involved with the organization of the workstation state list. We
also can find no such hierarchy with respect to the view
traversal control block. In column 4, lines 56-57, Liang simply
states that the "[view] traversal control block contains a list
of view masks." The failure to account for this feature
constitutes reversible error.
The examiner acknowledged (answer at 3) that Liang does not
disclose "said first data structure being mapped to a node of
said second data structure." However, the examiner simply
concluded (answer at 3) that it would have been obvious to one
with ordinary skill in the art to map the first data structure to
the second data structure "because this allowed for manipulations
of the descriptions stored in the first data structure." We
reject the examiner's view, since a data structure can be
directly manipulated without the nodes thereof being mapped to
another data structure. The examiner also has pointed to no
evidence that mapping between the nodes of data structures was a
commonly recognized way to achieve data manipulation.
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-7-
Moreover, the appellants have not simply claimed mapping in
general. Instead, a particular manner of mapping is required.
According to claim 1, each node of the second data structure maps
to at least one node at a single hierarchical level of the first
data structure. As can be seen in the appellants' Figure 5, all
map linkages originating from a node of graph 200 lead to nodes
occupying the same level of hierarchy in tree 220. The examiner
has not accounted for this feature of the invention, which has
not been conceded by the appellants (Br. at 8, lines 21-28).
We see this deficiency as another reversible error.
It is further noted that claim 1 recites an interface means
for encapsulating the first and second data structures from the
inquiring applications. The examiner states (answer at 3) that
Liang discloses an interface means for encapsulating, citing
Liang's column 6, line 45. In the context of the appellants'
invention, encapsulating data structures means having symbolic
constructs, implemented by physical layers at lower levels of
abstraction, which can be specially tailored to suit particular
applications. See specification, page 13, lines 22-31, page 17,
lines 7-13, page 18, lines 21-28. A data hiding function is
implemented thereby to limit the amount of data accessed by each
application. See specification, page 17, lines 11-13. The
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-8-
examiner finds in Liang "an interface means for encapsulating,"
citing column 6, line 45, et. seq. Lines 42 to 51 of column 6 of
Liang is reproduced below:
The system control processor 112 and the graphics
control processor 114 communicate through interrupts
and the communication areas described, above which are
stored in the system memory 113. The system control
processor will first initialize graphics control
processor 114 through general interface initialization.
This initialization includes establishment of all
interface control blocks. The SCP may next interrupt
the graphic control processor to start traversal and
may later stop traversal.
As the appellants correctly pointed out (Br. at 8), the cited
portions of Liang do not relate to data structure encapsulation.
If the examiner has interpreted data structure encapsulation to
mean something else, such other meaning has not been set forth or
explained. On this record, the examiner has failed to
demonstrate that Liang discloses the encapsulation feature of the
claimed invention.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-
5, 9 and 10 over Liang cannot be sustained.
Dependent claims 6-8 and 11-14 have been rejected over the
combination of Liang and Lazansky. Lazansky has been relied on
by the examiner to meet the additional features recited in the
dependent claims (answer at 4). It has not been applied in a
manner, as explained by the examiner, which would cure the
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-9-
deficiencies of Liang. Thus, the rejection of claims 6-8 and 11-
14 over Liang and Lazansky cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-10-
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-5, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Liang is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6-8 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Liang and Lazansky is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0067
Application 08/075,241
-11-
Marshall M. Curtis
Whitham and Marhoefer
Reston International Center
1180 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 220
Reston, VA 22091