Ex Parte Schimunek et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201412135150 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GOTTFRIED SCHIMUNEK, JAROSLAW MISZCZYK, BRENT J. BAUDE, and ROBERT A. BITTNER Appeal 2012-0046841 Application 12/135,150 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corp. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-004684 Application 12/135,150 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–25. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for automatically converting a very long pathname in a hierarchical data structure into a corresponding concise path code thereby allowing the direct retrieval of a desired endpoint in the data structure without traversing the path. Spec. 5:5– 15. In particular, a path encoding module (PEM-4) is used to assign a concise path code to an arbitrarily selected part of a pathname in the hierarchical data structure. The encoding is stored as a separate entity distinct from the hierarchical data structure. The path code is utilized to directly locate a desired endpoint in the path without traversing the path. Spec. 7:6–22. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative. It reads as follows: 1. A machine-implemented method for optimizing complex path endpoint resolution in a hierarchical data structure, comprising: maintaining an encoding between a path through said hierarchical data structure and an endpoint node of said path; said hierarchical data structure being stored in a memory as a searchable tree hierarchy that is navigatable Appeal 2012-004684 Application 12/135,150 3 by traversing a set of linked nodes situated on said path from a root node to said endpoint node; said encoding being separately stored in said memory as an entity that is distinct from said hierarchical data structure; receiving an input pathname corresponding to said path; using said input pathname to resolve said endpoint node from said encoding; and referencing said endpoint node in said hierarchical data structure without traversing said path as a result of resolving said endpoint node from said encoding. Prior Art Relied Upon Krishnamurthy US 2005/0055334 A1 Mar. 10, 2005 Ge US 2007/0198545 A1 Aug. 23, 2007 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Krishnamurthy and Ge. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11–16, and the Reply Brief, pages 4–9.2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 21, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed December 19, 2011), and the Answer (mailed October 27, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-004684 Application 12/135,150 4 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the proposed combination of Krishnamurthy and Ge teaches or suggests, separately storing in memory the encoding between a path through a hierarchical data structure and an end node of the path as an entity that is distinct from the data structure, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue the proffered combination of references does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue although Krishnamurthy and Ge disclose storing in a relational database, elements of an information hierarchy, the database does not store a hierarchical data structure separately stored from an encoded entity. Instead, the data stored in the relational database format completely replaces the hierarchical data structure. Id., Reply Br. 4–5. In response, the Examiner finds the disclosure, in both Krishnamurthy and Ge, of storing information hierarchies in memory and a table with encoded data such as path signatures and hash signatures teaches two distinct and separate entities stored in memory. Ans. 21. On the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We note at the outset Appellants’ challenge to the Examiner’s findings set forth above is not persuasive. In particular, we find unavailing Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has provided no support that the disclosure of storing information hierarchies teaches storing a hierarchical data structure. Reply Br. 5-6. Similarly, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that the combination of the cited references does not teach storing hierarchical data and encoded data as separate and distinct entities. Id. As detailed in the Answer, the Examiner Appeal 2012-004684 Application 12/135,150 5 relies upon paragraphs 35, 37, 58 of Krishnamurthy for the disclosure of storing information hierarchies in a database as well as path/hash signatures identifying an element in a path such that the hash value can provide quick access to the information hierarchies. Ans. 20–21. Likewise, the Examiner relies upon paragraphs 31, 46, and 63 of Ge to support these same findings. Id. We are satisfied that these findings made by the Examiner are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that at least the cited portions of Krishnamurthy and Ge teach the disputed limitations thereby shifting the burden of error to Appellants. However, we find unrebutted these specific findings made by the Examiner. Merely reciting the claim limitations and discussing findings other than those upon which the Examiner relied in the rejection is not a responsive argument. Such a response to the Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7–8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). See also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”) Appeal 2012-004684 Application 12/135,150 6 Furthermore, we find Krishnamurthy’s disclosure of storing information hierarchies along with corresponding path/hash signatures in a relational database [35] teaches or at least suggests that the information hierarchies and the hash signatures are distinctly and separately stored in the database. Because Appellants’ arguments have not shown otherwise, we thus find the cumulative weight and the totality of the evidence on this record reasonably supports the Examiner’s finding that the combined disclosures of Krishnamurthy and Ge would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal of providing arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Krishnamurthy and Ge renders claim 1 unpatentable. Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1, claims 2–25 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–25 as set forth above. 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). Appeal 2012-004684 Application 12/135,150 7 AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation