Ex Parte Shah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2017

13077367 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/077,367 03/31/2011 Biren Narendra Shah 82585280 5445
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIREN NARENDRA SHAH
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 16, and 19-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1,9, 11,21, and 22 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A multilevel indexing system for indexing documents
including structure and content information, the system
comprising:
a structure index module generating a structure index for
at least one of the documents based on a document structure;
a content index module generating a content index for at
least one of the documents based on a document type and
document content; and
a computerized tree generation module, executed by a
processor, to generate a multilevel indexing tree including the
structure and content indexes, wherein a search into the
structure index drives a search into the content index,
wherein at least one of the documents is a XML format
document and the document structure is a XPath used to
navigate through elements and attributes in the XML format
document, the structure index includes at least one bucket
containing a parent XPath with a corresponding child XPath,
and the system includes one structure index per collection of
the documents that conform to a same schema.
9. The system of claim 1, further comprising a location path
module for traversing the multilevel indexing tree, the location
path module determining an absolute location path or a
relative location path based on a query.
2
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the relative location
path traverses the multilevel indexing tree in forward or
backward directions from an element selected by a user to a
target element.
21. The system of claim 1, wherein the bucket is an ordered
list of n XPaths, (li,pi,ri),for pi G P where i = 0, ...,n-l, /, and ri
are left and right pointers respectively pointing to a
partitioned content-based index and a sub-bucket, and the
bucket includes a XPath-p with all pi such that the least
common ancestor of pi andp is p, for all childp,.
22. The system of claim 1, wherein the bucket contains n
XPaths-p, po, pi,..., pn-i, with 2n pointers, and a first XPath-p
po is a parent of all pi, for i -l, ...,n-l.
Rejection on Appeal1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 16, and 19-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hammerschmidt et al.
(US 2011/0179085 Al; July 21, 2011), in view of Ferragina et al.
(US 2007/0255748 Al; Nov. 1, 2007).2
1 The header of the rejection indicated that claim 6 is also rejected, but this
appears to be a typographical error, as the body of the rejection does not
address claim 6, and claim 6 has been cancelled.
2 The patentability of claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 28 is
not separately argued from that of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-14. The
patentability of claims 25 and 26 is not separately argued from that of claims
21 and 22. See Appeal Br. 18, 20-22. Except for our ultimate decision,
claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23-28 are not discussed further
herein.
3
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[A]t most, cited paragraph [0037] of Hammerschmidt appears to
describe “indexing structures that may be used over a collection
of XML documents 210”. Thus, cited paragraph [0037] of
Hammerschmidt appears to clearly describe a plurality of
indexing structures that may be used over a collection of XML
documents 210, but does not teach or suggest, inter alia, “one
structure index per collection of the documents that conform to
a same schema, ” as recited in independent claim 1.
Cited paragraph [0038] of Hammerschmidt appears to describe
how the “XML tree index entry is similar to a DOM tree in that
the index supports navigation of an XML hierarchy in all axes,
but there are several differences between an XML tree index and
a DOM,” “[t]he XML tree index stores persistent addresses,
whereas the DOM is an in-memory structure,” and “[t]he XML
tree index is an index stored separately from the content of the
document.” However, cited paragraph [0038] of
Hammerschmidt also does not teach or suggest any type of
structure index per collection of the documents that conform to
a same schema, and therefore, does not teach or suggest, inter
alia, “one structure index per collection of the documents that
conform to a same schema,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Cited paragraph [0039] of Hammerschmidt appears to describe
how a “structured index table, referred to herein as an “xmltable
index,” may be built to index the collection of XML documents,”
and “the xmltable index 230 is constructed to contain a row id,
name, price, description reference, and lineltem reference for
each lineltem fragment of all XML documents in the collection”.
However, cited paragraph [0039] of Hammerschmidt does not
teach or suggest that the xmltable index is for a collection of
the documents that conform to a same schema, and therefore,
does not teach or suggest, inter alia, “one structure index per
collection of the documents that conform to a same schema, ”
as recited in independent claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
Further, cited paragraph [0043] of Hammerschmidt indicates that
“[e]ach XML document may have its own separate XML tree
index,” “[a]n index may be generated and stored in response to a
request to index a particular XML document,” and “[o]ne index
entry corresponds to exactly one node of the corresponding XML
document.” Thus, at most, cited paragraph [0043] of
Hammerschmidt appears to describe a separate XML tree
index for each XML document. However, independent claim 1
clearly recites “the system includes one structure index per
collection of the documents that conform to a same schema. ”
Cited paragraph [0043] of Hammerschmidt however clearly
does not teach or suggest any type of “structure index per
collection of the documents that conform to a same schema, ”
as recited in independent claim 1.
Ferragina, which has been cited for allegedly disclosing other
features of independent claim 1, also does not overcome the
aforementioned deficiencies with respect to the disclosure of
Hammerschmidt.
Appeal Br. 10-12, emphasis added.
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[A]t most, cited paragraph [0036] of Hammerschmidt appears to
describe how “[a] document that conforms to a schema that is
registered with the database system may be shredded and the
document’s element values stored in a relational table where
relational operations may be performed efficiently on the data”.
The Examiner alleges that this disclosure of cited paragraph
[0036] of Hammerschmidt somehow supports the conclusion
that “Therefore, a structure index of the collection of document
conforms to a schema that is register with a database”. However,
the Examiner fails to provide any support for this conclusion
in the disclosure of Hammerschmidt. Hammerschmidt clearly
does not draw any type of connection between the “structured
index” table described in paragraph [0039] thereof, and “a
5
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
schema that is register with a database” as described in
paragraph [0036] thereof.
Reply Br. 6, emphasis added.
3. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Cited paragraph [0087] of Ferragina appears to describe “a
method of producing a succinct data structure for data included
in labeled trees that uses at most 2t log £|+0(t) bits and that
supports all navigational queries such as—parent(u), child(u, i),
and child(u, a)—in optimal 0(1) time.” However, cited
paragraph [0087] of Ferragina does not teach or suggest any
type of determination of an absolute location path or a relative
location path based on the navigational queries. Thus, cited
paragraph [0087] of Ferragina does not teach or suggest, inter
alia, ‘further comprising a location path module for traversing
the multilevel indexing tree, the location path module
determining an absolute location path or a relative location
path based on a query, ” as recited in dependent claim 9.
Further, cited paragraph [0203] of Ferragina indicates that a
“representation of Spcdata may be used that efficiently supports
XPath queries of the form //_[contains(.,y)], where n is a fully-
specified path and y is an arbitrary string of characters.” Thus,
at most, Ferragina appears to describe n as a fully-specified
path. However, Ferragina does not indicate that determination
of n is related to determination of an absolute location path or
a relative location path. Thus, Ferragina does not teach or
suggest, inter alia, ‘ further comprising a location path module
for traversing the multilevel indexing tree, the location path
module determining an absolute location path or a relative
location path based on a query, ” as recited in dependent claim
9.
Appeal Br. 15-16, emphasis added.
6
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
4. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 3, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Cited paragraph [0009] of Hammerschmidt indicates that “[t]he
“path” for a node in an XML document reflects the series of
parent-child links, starting from a “root” node, to arrive at the
particular node,” and “[f]or example, the path to the “price” node
in the example XML document 100 shown in LIG. 1A is
/PurchaseOrder/lineltem/price, since the “price” node is a child
of the “lineltem” node, and the “lineltem” node is a child of the
“PurchaseOrder” node.” However, these aspects of cited
paragraph [0009] of Hammerschmidt do not teach or suggest
any type of “relative location path ” as recited in claim 1. Thus,
cited paragraph [0009] of Hammerschmidt does not teach or
suggest “further comprising a location path module for
traversing the multilevel indexing tree, the location path
module determining an absolute location path or a relative
location path based on a query, ” as recited in dependent claim
9.
Lurther, cited paragraph [0104] of Lerragina indicates that
“[g]iven a path p of labels from .SIGMA., the subpath query
returns all nodes u, which is an element of T such that there exists
a path leading to u labeled by p. Note that u and the origin of p
could be internal to T. Subpath query is of central interest to the
XPATH query language in XML”. However, cited paragraph
[0104] of Ferragina also does not teach or suggest that the
subpath query is related to any type of “relative location path ”
as recited in claim 1. Thus, cited paragraph [0104] of
Ferragina does not teach or suggest at least “further
comprising a location path module for traversing the multilevel
indexing tree, the location path module determining an
absolute location path or a relative location path based on a
query, ” as recited in dependent claim 9.
Reply Br. 11-12, emphasis added.
7
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
5. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Cited paragraph [0021] of Hammerschmidt merely indicates that
“[descending in the tree from parent to child is called forward
navigation,” and “[ajscending up the hierarchy from child to
parent is referred to as backward navigation.” Thus, at most,
cited paragraph [0021] of Hammerschmidt appears to describe
descending in a tree from parent to child, or ascending up the
hierarchy from child to parent. However, cited paragraph
[0021] of Hammerschmidt does not teach or suggest any type
of relative location path traversal. Thus, Hammerschmidt does
not teach or suggest, inter alia, “wherein the relative location
path traverses the multilevel indexing tree in forward or
backward directions from an element selected by a user to a
target element,” as recited in dependent claim 11.
Further, cited paragraph [0022] of Hammerschmidt indicates that
“[w]hen the XML data is stored as binary XML, such as a SAX
stream token sequence, in order to navigate forward, the tokens
have to be read sequentially until the desired node is found.”
Cited paragraph [0022] of Hammerschmidt further indicates that
“[fjinding a parent or ancestor node requires processing the
sequence from the beginning of the sequence because parents
and ancestors appear before the current node in the sequence,”
“[fjinding a sibling node depends on whether the sibling appears
before or after the current node in sequence,” and “[although
ancestors and siblings may be identified by following forward
links in this way, multiple passes through the document may be
required.” Thus, at most, cited paragraph [0022] of
Hammerschmidt appears to describe identification of ancestors
and siblings by following forward links. However, cited
paragraph [0022] of Hammerschmidt also does not teach or
suggest any type of relative location path traversal. Thus,
Hammerschmidt does not teach or suggest, inter alia, “wherein
the relative location path traverses the multilevel indexing tree
in forward or backward directions from an element selected by
a user to a target element, ” as recited in dependent claim 11.
8
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
Appeal Br. 17-18 (emphasis added).
6. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Cited paragraph [0107] of Ferragina indicates that “[t]he method
of SubPathSearch in FIG. 8 involves computing the range [First,
Fast] in k phases numbered from k to 1,” and “[e]ach phase
preserves the following invariant: At the end of the i-th phase the
parameter First points to the first row of S such that S,i[First] is
prefixed by qi... qk and the parameter Fast points to the last row
of S such that S,i[Fast] is prefixed by qi ... qk.” However, these
aspects of Ferragina appear to pertain to parameters that point
to the first and last rows of S, where S is sorted multiset as
described in paragraph [0055] of Ferragina. These aspects of
Ferragina do not pertain to buckets, which as described in
paragraph [0026] and cited paragraph [0203] of Ferragina,
pertain to splitting of Spcdata into buckets such that if two
elements have the same upward path, the two elements will be
in the same bucket.
Referring again to cited paragraph [0107] of Ferragina,
Ferragina does not mention any aspects related to buckets, or
splitting of Spcdata into buckets. Ferragina also does not mention
that the parameters First or Last in cited paragraph [0107]
thereof are related to buckets. Therefore, cited paragraph
[0107] of Ferragina does teach or suggest, inter alia, “the
bucket is an ordered list of n XPaths, (li,pi,ri), for pt G P where
i = 0, ...,n-l, U and r, are left and right pointers respectively
pointing to a partitioned content-based index and a sub-bucket,
and the bucket includes a XPath-p with all pi such that the least
common ancestor ofpi and p is p, for all child pi, ” as recited in
dependent claim 21, and similarly recited in dependent claim
25.
With respect to cited paragraphs [0203], [0204], and [0206] of
Ferragina, cited paragraph [0203] of Ferragina appears to
describe buckets, where a bucket of Spcdata is formed by
concatenating the strings in 5pcdata[i,j]. Further, cited paragraphs
[0204] and [0206] of Ferragina appear to describe storing an FM-
9
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
index of the bucket, and a pointer to the FM-indexed block and
its counter, respectively. However, this general mention of
buckets in cited paragraphs [0203], [0204], and [0206] of
Ferragina fails to teach or suggest, inter alia, that “the bucket
is an ordered list of n XPaths, (li,pi,ri), for pi G P where i = 0,
...,n-l, h and ri are left and right pointers respectively pointing
to a partitioned content-based index and a sub-bucket, and the
bucket includes a XPath-p with all pi such that the least
common ancestor ofpi and p is p, for all child pi, ” as recited in
dependent claim 21, and similarly recited in dependent claim
25.
Appeal Br. 19-20, emphasis added.
7. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 6, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, “referring to page 6 of the Examiner’s Answer,
the Examiner merely copies/pastes paragraph [0107] of Ferragina without
actually addressing any of [Appellant’s] arguments from the Appeal Brief.”
Reply Br. 14.
8. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[C]ited paragraph [0107] of Ferragina indicates that “[t]he
method of SubPathSearch in FIG. 8 involves computing the
range [First, Last] in k phases numbered from k to 1,” and “[e]ach
phase preserves the following invariant: At the end of the i-th
phase the parameter First points to the first row of S such that Sti
[First] is prefixed by qi . . . qk and the parameter Last points to
the last row of S such that Sn[Last] is prefixed by qi . . . qk.”
However, these aspects of Ferragina appear to pertain to
parameters that point to the first and last rows of S, where Sis
sorted multiset as described in paragraph [0055] of Ferragina.
These aspects of Ferragina do not pertain to buckets, which as
described in paragraph [0026] and cited paragraph [0203] of
Ferragina, pertain to splitting of Spcdata into buckets such that
if two elements have the same upward path, the two elements
10
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
will be in the same bucket. Referring to cited paragraph [0107]
of Ferragina, Ferragina does not mention any aspects related
to buckets, or splitting of Spcdata into buckets. Ferragina also
does not mention that the parameters First or Last in cited
paragraph [0107] thereof are related to buckets. Therefore,
cited paragraph [0107] of Ferragina does teach or suggest,
inter alia, “wherein the bucket contains n XPaths-p, po, pi,...,
p„.i, with 2n pointers, and a first XPath-p po is a parent of all
Pi, for i -l, . . .,n-l,” as recited in dependent claim 22, and
similarly recited in dependent claim 26.
With respect to cited paragraphs [0203], [0204], and [0206] of
Ferragina, cited paragraph [0203] of Ferragina appears to
describe buckets, where a bucket of Spcdata is formed by
concatenating the strings in 5pcdata[i,j]. Further, cited paragraphs
[0204] and [0206] of Ferragina appear to describe storing an FM-
index of the bucket, and a pointer to the FM-indexed block and
its counter, respectively. However, this general mention of
buckets in cited paragraphs [0203], [0204], and [0206] of
Ferragina fails to teach or suggest, inter alia, “wherein the
bucket contains n XPaths-p, po, pi, ..., pn-i, with 2n pointers,
and a first XPath-p po is a parent of all pi, for i -l, ...,n-l,” as
recited in dependent claim 22, and similarly recited in
dependent claim 26.
Appeal Br. 21-22, emphasis added.
9. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 8, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, “referring to page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer,
the Examiner again merely copies/pastes paragraph [0107] of Ferragina
without actually addressing any of [Appellant’s] arguments from the Appeal
Brief.” Reply Br. 15.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 9 as being obvious?
11
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 11 as being obvious?
4. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being obvious?
5. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 22 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
As to Appellant’s above contentions 6 and 7 (regarding claim 21), we
are persuaded the Examiner erred. While we agree with the Examiner that
Ferragina teaches a bucket (see Final Act. 10), we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner has not established that the combination of Hammerschmidt
and Ferragina teaches or suggests
wherein the bucket is an ordered list of n XPaths, (li,pi,n), for
pi G P where i = 0, ...,n-l, 1, and r, are left and right pointers
respectively pointing to a partitioned content-based index and a
sub-bucket, and the bucket includes a XPath-p with all pi such
that the least common ancestor of pi and p is p, for all child pt,
as recited in claim 21. See Appeal Br. 19-20; see also Reply Br. 14-15.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 8 and 9 (regarding claim 22), we
are persuaded the Examiner erred. As described above with respect to claim
21, while we agree with the Examiner that Ferragina teaches a bucket (see
Final Act. 10), we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
established that the combination of Hammerschmidt and Ferragina teaches
or suggests “wherein the bucket contains n XPaths-p, po, pi, ..., pn-i, with 2n
pointers, and a first XPath-p po is a parent of all ph for i =1,...,«-1,” as
recited in claim 22. See Appeal Br. 21-22 (emphasis omitted); see also
Reply Br. 15-16.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 1 and 2 (regarding claim 1), we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that
12
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
Hammerschmidt teaches a structured index table (i.e., an “xmltable index”)
that indexes a collection of extensible markup language (“XML”)
documents, where the documents conform to a schema. See Ans. 2-3 (citing
Hammerschmidt ]}]} 36-37, 39). Appellant’s argument regarding
Hammerschmidt’s structured index table (see Appeal Br. 10-11; see also
Reply Br. 6-7) does not specifically identify how the language of claim 1
patentably distinguishes from the teaching of Hammerschmidt. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hammerschmidt and
Ferragina teaches “the system includes one structure index per collection of
the documents that conform to a same schema,” as recited in claim 1.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 3 and 4 (regarding claim 9), we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that
Hammerschmidt teaches an absolute location path, and that Ferragina
teaches both an absolute location path and a relative location path. See Final
Act. 6 (citing Ferragina]} 203); see also Ans. 4 (citing Hammerschmidt]}]} 9,
27; Ferragina ]} 104). Neither Appellant’s argument that Ferragina merely
describes a fully-specified path (see Appeal Br. 15-16), nor Appellant’s
argument regarding Hammerschmidt and Ferragina found in Appellant’s
Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 11-12), specifically identifies how the language
of claim 9 patentably distinguishes from the teaching of Hammerschmidt
and Ferragina. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Hammerschmidt and Ferragina teaches “determining an absolute location
path or a relative location path based on a query,” as recited in claim 9.
As to Appellant’s above contention 5 (regarding claim 11), we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that
Hammerschmidt teaches forward navigation within a tree (i.e., descending
13
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
down a tree hierarchy from parent to child) and backwards navigation within
a tree (i.e., ascending up a tree hierarchy from child to parent). See Ans. 5
(citing Hammerschmidt ^ 21). Appellant’s argument that Hammerschmidt
merely describes descending from parent to child and ascending from child
to parent (see Appeal Br. 17) does not specifically identify how the language
of claim 11 patentably distinguishes from the teaching of Hammerschmidt.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hammerschmidt
and Ferragina teaches “wherein the relative location path traverses the
multilevel indexing tree in forward or backward directions from an element
selected by a user to a target element,” as recited in claim 11.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15,
16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
(2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 28 are not
patentable.
(4) On this record, claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 have not been shown to
be unpatentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 16,
19, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
14
Appeal 2016-005516
Application 13/077,367
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15