Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

13181585 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/181,585 07 /13/2011
61962 7590 02/26/2016
FAY SHARPE LLP I XEROX - PARC
1228 EUCLID A VENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tim C. Schmidt
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20101693USNP-XER2661US01 4682
EXAMINER
GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIM C. SCHMIDT and RONG ZHOU
Appeal2014-003045
Application 13/181,585
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003045
Application 13/181,585
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for encoding state sets comprising:
encoding a binary prefix tree representation of a set of state
spaces as a level ordered edge sequence (LOBS) of bit pairs which
represent edges of each inner tree node from left to right, and top to
bottom order and each bit identifies a presence of a leaf of each inner
tree node by a first identifier and an absence of a leaf of each inner
tree node by a second identifier; and
wherein the method is performed by use of an electronic
computing device.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Koyanagi et al. (US
2010/0017397 Al; Jan. 21, 2010), Andrews (US 2010/0094885 Al; Apr. 15,
2010), and Yang et al. ("Summary Structures for Frequency Queries on
Large Transaction Sets," Data Compression Conference, 200, Proceedings
DCC 2000; published 2000; Pages 420-429). 1
1 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of claim 1 is
determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of
claims 2-17, is not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2014-003045
Application 13/181,585
Appellants' Contention2
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
None of the references disclose or fairly suggest
encoding a binary prefix tree representation as a level ordered
edge sequence (LOES) which represents edges of each inner
tree node from left to right, and top to bottom order. The
Examiner asserts Koyanagi on p. 3 of the Office Action.
Koyanagi discloses the process for converting the tree structure
to a string structure, called a DPS (Depth First Search)
encoding, which may be used to store the word tree pattern in
the tree. [0064]. A DPS searches top to bottom before left to
right. Claim 1 calls for a left to right, and top to bottom order.
The ordering is different. A top to bottom before left to right
encoding will not achieve the same result of a left to right and
top to bottom order. Furthermore, Koyanagi discloses after the
trie is generated from the word string patterns, the conversion
processing section 70 converts the trie to a deterministic finite-
state automaton (DF A). [Koyanagi 0071] A deterministic finite-
state automaton (DFA) is not a level ordered edge sequence
(LOES).
App. Br. 8-9, emphases omitted.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-17 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
2 This contention is determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore,
Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2014-003045
Application 13/181,585
As to Appellants' above contention, we agree. The Examiner
responds to Appellants' argument by stating:
The order of encoding is not specified in the claims, with the
claims merely stating that the encoding have left to right, and
top to bottom order. Nowhere in the claims is it specified that
the encoding specifically states the steps being left to right, then
top to bottom order, but rather states that encoding comprises
left to right, and top to bottom order, which the prior art of
Koyanagi teaches in the depth first search encoding.
Ans. 3--4. We agree with the Examiner that, absent any further limitation,
the claim language "from left to right, and top to bottom order" has the
broader meaning ascribed to it by the Examiner. However, that is not the
claim before us. The Examiner overlooks that the term "a level ordered
edge sequence (LOES)" places a limitation on any interpretation of the claim
language "from left to right, and top to bottom order." The claimed "a level
ordered edge sequence (LOES)" is a term of art. 3 That term of art,
particularly the language "level ordered," requires that claim language "from
left to right, and top to bottom order" has the narrower meaning ascribed to
it by the Appellants. Under the Examiner interpretation the language "level
ordered" would have no relevancy as Examiner's prior art edge sequence
does not involve any ordering by levels. We conclude, consistent with
Appellants' argument, there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support
the Examiner's findings that "Koyanagi teaches ... a level ordered edge
sequence (LOES)" (Final Act. 3).
3 See, e.g., Tim Schmidt and Rong Zhou, Succinct Set-Encoding for State-
Space Search, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on
Artificial Intelligence (2011 ).
4
Appeal2014-003045
Application 13/181,585
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 is reversed.
REVERSED
5