Ex Parte STYLE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

14109118 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/109,118 12/17/2013
23117 7590 03/29/2019
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernard J. STYLE
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.
VL0-5135-119 5071
EXAMINER
DYER, ANDREW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARD J. STYLE
Appeal 2018-002686 1
Application 14/109,1182
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11-17, 20, and 21, which constitute all
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 This case is related to an Appeal of the Parent Application, U.S. Patent
Application No. 13/551,891, Appeal No. 2017-001133.
2 The real party in interest is identified as Software AG USA, Inc. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to processing XML documents of large
size. Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 2, 17, 18, 44, 45, 47, Fig. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary
of the matter on appeal ( emphasis added):
1. A system for processing XML documents, comprising
processing resources including at least one processor and
a memory,
wherein the processing resources are configured to
perform operations comprising:
pre-parsing an XML document to generate a plurality of
XML segments and metadata for each generated XML segment,
the XML document including a plurality of objects
representable in accordance with an object model, wherein pre-
parsing the XML document includes dividing the entire XML
document into the plurality of generated XML segments, with
each generated XML segment including a portion of raw XML
source code of the XML document and a plurality of nodes, and
the metadata for the respective generated XML segment
identifying a range of node identifiers representing the plurality
of nodes in the raw XML source code of the respective
generated XML segment; and
in response to a request received for an object from a user
program:
identifying, based on the generated metadata, at
least one of the generated XML segments having the
requested object;
parsing the identified at least one XML segment
into one or more constituent nodes;
encoding the identified at least one XML segment
into one or more cacheable partitions, each said
cacheable partition including a locator array, a properties
array, and a character array, wherein the properties array
is configured to store a plurality of encoded nodes, as
well as, for each said encoded node: (1) metadata
2
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
including a respective node type, (2) reference(s) to any
familial nodes thereof, and (3) offset(s) into the character
array for any attribute and/ or text value( s) associated
therewith, wherein the locator array identifies starting
positions of nodes encoded in the properties array; and
instantiating said requested object using the one or
more cacheable partitions and the one or more
constituent nodes in accordance with the object model.
App. Br. 30 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTI0NS 3
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pannala et al. (US 7,092,967 B 1; issued
Aug. 15, 2006) ("Pannala") in view of Chiu et al. (US 2009/008965 8 A 1;
pub. Apr. 2, 2009) ("Chiu"), and Shopiro et al. (US 7,680,875 Bl; pub. Mar.
16, 2010) ("Shopiro"). Final Act. 5-12.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pannala, Chiu, Shopiro, and Lemoine (US 7,512,592 B2; issued Mar. 31,
2009) ("Lemoine"). Final Act. 12-14.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pannala, Chiu, Shopiro, and Meijer et al. (US 7,454,436 B2; issued Nov. 18,
2008) ("Meijer"). Final Act. 14--15.
3 In the Final Action, claims 1, 11-17, and 20 are rejected for double
patenting. Final Act. 2. The Answer states the double patenting rejection of
claims 1, 11-17, and 20 is withdrawn. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pannala, Chiu, and Chakraborty et al. (US 6,542,911 B2;
issued April 1, 2003) ("Chakraborty"). Final Act. 16-19.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Pannala and Chiu teaches the claim 1 limitations regarding
"pre-parsing." Reply Br. 2-5; App. Br. 16-18. According to Appellant:
Claim 1, for example, requires pre-parsing an XML document
to generate a plurality of XML segments and metadata for each
generated XML segment, and performing specific operations in
response to a request received for an object from a user
program. These specific operations include (1) identifying,
based on the generated metadata, at least one of the generated
XML segments having the requested object, (2) parsing the
identified at least one XML segment into one or more
constituent nodes, (3) encoding the identified at least one XML
segment into one or more cacheable partitions, and ( 4)
instantiating said requested object using the one or more
constituent nodes and the one or more cacheable partitions in
accordance with the object model. This combination of features
provide for delayed encoding of information sets ( e.g., XML
information sets or "infosets") and node instantiation (see
paragraph [0079] of the [S]pecification) -- and provide a
number of benefits over conventional approaches such as
parallel processing of the sort disclosed in Chiu (see discussion
of Chiu in paragraph [0081] of the [S]pecification).
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds Pannala teaches a method of "'lazy
manifestation"' that constitutes pre-parsing. Final Act. 6 ( citing Pannala
3: 17-28) ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Pannala teaches
"'identifying, based on the generated metadata, at least one of the generated
XML segments having the requested object"' by including locators during
4
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
generation of the loadable unit, which are then used to locate necessary
loadable units. Id. (citing Pannala 3:38--49, 7:14--32). The Examiner finds
Pannala teaches "'parsing the identified at least one XML segment into one
or more constituent nodes"' by manifesting a returned portion (e.g., a token
or segment) of an XML document. Id. (citing Pannala 3: 17-28, 6:29-32).
The Examiner finds Chiu teaches
wherein pre-parsing the XML document includes dividing the
entire XML document into the plurality of generated XML
segments, with each generated XML segment including a
portion of raw XML source code of the XML document and a
plurality of nodes, the metadata for the respective generated
XML segment identifying a range of node identifiers
representing the plurality of nodes in the raw XML source code
of the respective generated XML segment.
Id. at 7-8 (citing Chiu ,r,r 73, 88). According to the Examiner, this step is
"pre-parsing" because it occurs prior to the parsing step and this limitation is
shown by Chiu's disclosure that the data is broken into "chunks" of roughly
equal size because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing
date of the present invention would have recognized that, if the chunks are
roughly equal in size, it is logical that some of the chunks would include a
plurality of nodes. Id. The Examiner finds Chiu teaches "'the metadata for
the respective XML segment identifying a range of node identifiers
representing the plurality of nodes in the raw XML source code of the
respective XML segment"' by providing chunk metadata that defines the
first and last element locations. Id. at 8 ( citing Chiu ,r 95 (Step 3)).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding that Chiu teaches
"encoding the identified at least one XML segment into one or more
cacheable partitions" because Chiu does not disclose encoding its "well-
balanced chunks" which the Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed
5
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
XML segments. App. Br. 20-21 (citing Chiu ,r,r 3, 71, 95, Fig. 1; Spec. 19;
Final Act. 7-8).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention understood that "lazy manifestation" always include a
pre-parsing step, and, as presented on the record, it has long been known in
the art of XML parsing that "[l]azy parsing employs a preparsing operation
to determine a structure of the XML document" ( emphasis added). Ans. 5
(quoting Chiu ,r 6). According to the Examiner, Appellant has presented no
evidence contradicting this statement already on the record and "[ t ]he
arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record." Id.
The Examiner finds, assuming arguendo, that Pannala did fail to properly
identify the pre-parsing step, Chiu also explicitly discloses a "preparsing"
step, as claimed. Id. (citing Chiu, 73). The Examiner finds one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that Pannala's disclosure of lazy
manifestation also includes the claimed parsing, for example, lazy parsing
includes a pre-parsing event and a later and separate full parsing step of the
accessed nodes. Id. at 6 ( citing Chiu ,r,r 6, 95 (step 2), 99). Regarding
"instantiating," Pannala describes manifesting as creating an in-memory
representation of the data and Appellant describes "instantiating" to mean
"creating." Id. at 6 (citing Pannala 3:21-24; Spec. ,r 44). Thus, the
Examiner finds Pannala teaches separate pre-parsing, parsing, and
instantiating steps. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds the manifestation ( creation
or instantiation) occurs when there is a need and in response to an invocation
and, therefore, the instantiation is "a requested object." Id. ( citing Pannala
3 :25-28, 6:63---65). Regarding "encoding," the Examiner observes
Appellant has not provided a definition in the Specification, but provided
6
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
evidence in an Information Disclosure Statement dated October 11, 2016
that those of ordinary skill in the art understand the term encode to mean "to
format according to a standard format." Id. at 8-9 ( citing AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY (4th ed. 2002) 461). The Examiner finds Pannala explicitly
discloses that the loadable units may conform to some "'content structure[]'
... [and] define[s] some of the formats that may be used by the content
structures." Id. at 8 (citing Pannala 3:38--49). According to the Examiner,
the data in the loadable unit could not be put into such a content structure
without first having been formatted to the content structure (i.e., the standard
format) and, therefore, the instantiation is also "'using an encoded loadable
unit. "' Id.
The Examiner finds Chiu teaches encoding the well balanced chunks
of an XML document. Id. at 9 (citing Chiu ,r,r 58, 95, Fig. 8). According to
the Examiner, it is well known that the "'DOM tree"' described by Chiu has
a defined format and, therefore, the parsed results must be formatted
(encoded) to fit into the DOM tree's format. Id. The Examiner additionally
finds Pannala teaches encoding because it inserts parsed data into content
structure having defined formats, necessitating encoding the data. Id. at 10
( citing Pannala 3 :3 8--49). Regarding "cacheable partitions," applying
Appellant's definition of "cacheable partition" as a "composite object that
includes structured information about a segment of an XML document that
has been pre-parsed" (Spec. 31 ), the Examiner finds both Pannala and Chiu
teach "cacheable partitions" and that any data can be stored, and thus, any
data is cacheable as claimed. Ans. 10-12 (citing Chiu 73, 95; Pannala 3:17-
49). The Examiner finds Chiu teaches the storage of a plurality of nodes and
7
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
the combination of Pannala, Chiu, and Shopiro teaches the nodes contain the
required information. Id. at 12.
The Examiner finds that many of Appellant's arguments are based on
bodily incorporation of features of the secondary references. For example,
Chiu is not cited for teaching all of the claimed pre-parsing, as it is the
combination of Pannala, Chiu, and Shopiro that teaches these features. Id. at
14 ( citing Final Act. 6-8).
Regarding the combination of the references, the Examiner finds
Pannala and Chiu are from the same field of endeavor: processing XML
documents. Id. at 19 (citing Pannala 1:60-63; Chiu ,r 35). The Examiner
finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have found substitution of a data
structure defining a pre-parsed XML document for another data structure
defining a pre-parsed XML document quite easily predictable. Id. at 18.
Regarding the combination with Shopiro, the Examiner finds Shopiro "'is
applicable to any software system characterized by fill and vend cycles,
where the vended content is some transformation of the filled content,"'
where filled and vended content are defined as storage of data and the
retrieval of the stored data. Id. at 16 (citing Shopiro 1:8-11, 18-21). The
Examiner finds Pannala and Chiu are storing data, transforming it, and
retrieving it and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to
Shapiro. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates arguments presented in the
Appeal Brief and argues the pre-parsing of Chiu provides a skeleton of the
XML document before the XML document is divided into chunks for
parallel processing and is different from the specific pre-parsing recited in
the claims. Reply Br. 4--9 ( citing Chiu ,r 71, Fig. 1; App. Br. 19).
8
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
According to Appellant, the Examiner's claim interpretations of "encoding"
and "cacheable" do not show that the Specification was considered in
determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms. Id. at 5-9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree, instead,
with the claim interpretations, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. In
particular, regarding "lazy manifestation," on the record before us, the
Examiner's findings are reasonable and Appellant's arguments represent
attorney arguments that are not persuasive. Additionally, Appellant argue an
unreasonably narrow teaching of the references that would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art.
We note much of Appellant's argument is unsupported by factual
evidence. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, Appeal 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843, at *3--4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings regarding the combination of Johnson and Wu
and claim interpretation of claim 1 's disputed limitations. Appellant
presents no persuasive arguments the Examiner's findings and claim
interpretation are unreasonable, overbroad, or inconsistent with the
Specification. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Our reviewing court states that "the words of a claim 'are generally
9
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
given their ordinary and customary meaning."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) ( citations omitted).
Appellant argues the references individually, although the rejection is
based on the combination of the teachings of the cited references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references" (citations omitted).); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant also argues an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references and an overly demanding standard of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Here, the Examiner provides sufficient evidence as required for
obviousness. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness
rejection must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness .... [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
10
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each
claimed element was well known in the art, we agree with the Examiner
because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Id. at 415-16. We note Appellant presents no persuasive arguments that the
results are unpredictable. Moreover, as discussed supra, the Examiner
additionally provided reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would
combine each of the references in the manner suggested.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 17 and 20 as these claims are not separately argued.
App. Br. 25. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 11,
12, and 21 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding dependent claim 7, "for each generated XML segment
from the plurality of the XML segments, determining a state before
beginning the pre-parsing of the XML document; and storing the determined
state as at least part of the metadata associated with the generated XML
segment," Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Chiu teaches this
limitation because Chiu make no mention of an XML segment's state, much
less a state before beginning the pre-parsing of the XML document and for
each chunk of Chiu, which allegedly correspond to the claimed generated
XML segments. App. Br. 25 (citing Chiu ,r,r 80-84). The Examiner finds
11
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
Chiu explicitly discloses that the process of using the PXP approach is
founded on knowing (i.e., having previously stored) the state of each node in
order to process the chunk. Ans. 21-22 (citing Chiu ,r,r 70-71, 80, 84, Fig.
3). According to the Examiner, it would at least suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art that these determined states are determined prior to the pre-
parsing of the XML document and stored, as claimed. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Regarding dependent claim 9, "the processing resources are further
configured to, in response to the request, store the one or more constituent
nodes in the cacheable partition having the associated generated XML
Segment," Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Pannala teaches
storing data in response to a request and teaches storing results of parsing
( the one or more constituent nodes in the cacheable partition having the
associated generated XML segment). App. Br. 26 (citing Pannala 3:29-37).
The Examiner finds Pannala teaches that a request for an object of the
XML document causes the system to create an in memory object (i.e.,
stores) containing nodes of the XML document and, therefore, the
combination of Pannala, Chiu, and Shapiro does teach or suggest "'storing
data in response to a request."' Ans. 23 (citing Pannala 3:19-25, 29-37).
The Examiner finds the storage is of the nodes of the XML documents (i.e.,
the result of the parsing) and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that a computer system must store data in order to do anything
with that data. Thus, the combination of Pannala, Chiu, and Shapiro
discloses "'storing the one or more constituent nodes."' Id.
Regarding dependent claim 21,
12
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
the processing resources are further configured to: receive an
update request to a node in the identified at least one XML
segment; in response to the update request, encode a
replacement node with new information requested in the update
request into one of the cacheable partitions; and replace
references to an encoded node corresponding to the node for
which the update is received with a reference to encoded
replacement node,
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Shopiro
and Pannala teaches these limitations. App. Br. 26. According to Appellant,
the Examiner relies on Pannala for teaching the method for encoding the
data, but Pannala is silent with regard to encoding nodes. Id. (citing Pannala
3: 17-28; Shopiro 9:25-32; Final Act. 12). Appellant argues Shopiro and
Pannala do not mention replacing reference to an encoded node
corresponding to the node as claimed. Id. (citing Pannala 9:25-32). The
Examiner finds Appellant is arguing against the references individually
because Pannala discloses encoding nodes as claimed. Ans. 25 ( citing Final
Act.12; Pannala 3: 17-28). Further, the Examiner finds Shapiro discloses
receiving an update to a node, replacing the node to be updated with the
updated node, and replacing the necessary references, as claimed. Id.
(Shapiro 9:25-34). According to the Examiner, when combined, one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method for updating the
nodes and replacing the necessary references of Shapiro would be performed
on nodes encoded according to the method of Pannala.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 13-16, Appellant argues
the rejection Heading does not include Shopiro and, therefore, the rejection
is improper. App. Br. 28 n2. Regarding claim 13, Appellant argues the
13
Appeal 2018-002686
Application 14/109, 118
Examiner errs in finding Chakraborty teaches the allocating operations
recited in the claim. Id. (citing Chakraborty 5:58-6:2). According to
Appellant, the Chakraborty intermediate structure is created by an XML
garbage collector and the Examiner provides no specific teaching of
Chakraborty corresponding to the limitations. Id. at 28-29.
The Examiner finds, despite the omission of Shopiro in the Heading,
the Final Action references Shopiro and Appellant could have identified the
error and contacted the Office. Ans. 26 ( citing MPEP § 710.06). Regarding
claim 13, the Examiner finds Chakraborty teaches the disputed limitations as
broadly, but reasonably, interpreted. Id. at 27. The Examiner finds that
Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the claims and Appellant
inadequately characterizes Chakraborty. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 7, 9, 13-16, and 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11-
17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
14