Ex Parte Swengler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

13471440 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 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.
13/471,440 05/14/2012 PAUL STUART SWENGLER SOFT-0002 7299
68612 7590 03/13/2017
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN R. OLSEN, PLLC
P.O. BOX 2092
INVERNESS, FL 34451-2092
EXAMINER
GURMU, MULUEMEBET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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):
SOLSEN@sropatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL STUART SWENGLER
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—5 and 10—19, which are
all claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.1
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Feb. 21, 2016 (“App.
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 24, 2016 (“Ans.”); Non-Final Office
Action mailed Aug. 27, 2015 (“Non-Final Act.”); and original Specification
filed May 14, 2012 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “an improved system and method for
building logical associations (links) between files and for assigning
attributes to the files and/or links.” Spec. 1 5. According to Appellant,
[s]uch attributes may be or include lineage data. In embodiments
of the invention, such attribute data is indexed in a data store
according to Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) in each file
header. In the alternative, or in combination, such attribute data
may be stored in file headers.
Id.
Appellant’s claim 1 —the only independent claim on appeal—is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A specially-configured computer comprising a processor
and a file management system, the file management system
configured to perform a file copying process, the file copying
process including the steps of:
reading a first Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) in a
header of a parent file, the parent file being an original file, the
header of the parent file being a portion of the parent file;
generating a second UUID;
writing the second UUID to a header of [the] a child file,
the child file being a copy of the original file, the header of the
child file being a portion of the child file; and
forming a lineage record in at least one of the header of
the child file and the header of the parent file, the lineage
record associating the first UUID and the second UUID, the
lineage record thus associating the parent file and the child file
without reference to a filename of the parent file or a filename
of the child file.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
Examiner’s Rejection and References
Claims 1—5 and 10—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0179153 Al; published Aug.
10, 2006; “Lee”), Zhou et al. (US 8,515,911 Bl; published Aug. 20, 2013;
“Zhou”), and Mueller et al. (US 2007/0204215 Al; published Aug. 30,
2007; “Mueller”). Non-Final Act. 3—16.
ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the cited prior art teaches or suggests several limitations of
Appellant’s claim 1, including: (1) “reading a first Universally Unique
Identifier (UUID) in a header of a parent file, the parent file being an
original file,” (2) “writing the second UUID to a header of a child file, the
child file being a copy of the original file,” (3) “forming a lineage record in
at least one of the header of the child file and the header of the parent file,”
and (4) “the header of the parent file being a portion of the parent file” and
“the header of the child file being a portion of the child file.” App. Br. 3—6.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Lee teaches
Appellant’s claimed “file management system configured to perform a file
copying process” in the context of splitting a multimedia file into a number
of smaller files for transmission and merging those split files upon
reproduction, including what the Examiner characterizes as: (1) “reading a
first Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) in a header of a parent file, the
parent file being an original file,” (2) “writing the second UUID to a header
3
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
of a child file, the child file being a copy of the original file,” (3) “forming a
lineage record in at least one of the header of the child file and the header of
the parent file” in the manner recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Non-Final Act.
3^4 (citing Lee H 46, 56, 71, 89, 99).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Mueller for teaching (4) “the header of the parent file being a portion of the
parent file” and “the header of the child file being a portion of the child file”
respectively. Ans. 5 (citing Mueller | 84). The Examiner then relies on
Zhou for teaching “associating the parent file and the child file without
reference to a filename of the parent file or a filename of the child file” as
recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Zhou 7:46—52).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Lee and
Mueller. In particular, Appellant acknowledges Lee teaches:
a system and method for splitting (fragmenting) an original
media file into multiple split files, saving the split files, and then
later merging the split files into a restored media file. See, e.g.,
paragraphs [0060] and [0065] of Lee. Lee further discloses that
“split information” (understood to include sequencing
information and identifiers and for each of the multiple split files)
are saved in a separate “Header file.” Id. Lee discloses that “split
files” are named with UUID’s to prevent identical naming.
Paragraph [0073] of Lee.
App. Br. 3 (emphasis added). Appellant further acknowledges Lee teaches
creating “a Header file 610” as “separate from the original media file, the
split files, and the restored file”, and Lee’s restored file can be seen as “a
copy of the original media file.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Lee H 81, 93, Fig. 7).
However, Appellant contends Lee does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of Appellant’s claim 1, including: (1) “reading a first Universally
4
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
Unique Identifier (UUID) in a header of a parent file, the parent file being an
original file,” (2) “writing the second UUID to a header of a child file, the
child file being a copy of the original file,” (3) “forming a lineage record in
at least one of the header of the child file and the header of the parent file.”
Id. at 4. According to Appellant, “[t]here is no disclosure in Lee of
duplicating the Header file 610” and, as such, “there is no disclosure in Lee
of a child Header file.” Id.
Appellant further argues Mueller does not teach what the Examiner
alleges as “the header of the parent file being a portion of the parent file”
and “the header of the child file being a portion of the child file”
respectively. Id. at 5.
The Examiner responds that:
Lee teaches, See paragraph [0056], the Client/Player reproduces
a file (i.e. reproduce file is the child file that is the copy of the
original file) by reading the configuration information of split
files recorded in the Header File (i.e. a header of the parent file
which is the original file). Lee further teaches, See [0060], an
original multimedia file of an Admin Client is split into certain
sizes of files by a file Splitter. As a result of it, the files split into
certain sizes and a header file including the split information are
created. Lee further teaches, See paragraph [0089], Fig. 13, a
process of splitting an actual file and copying a Header file based
on analyzed information. The name of a split file appears as a
form of a GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). (When the split
files are collected together the files have the same header file;
therefore, Lee discloses the same “Header file” as the original
file).
Ans. 3.
We disagree with the Examiner. As acknowledged by the Examiner,
Lee’s restored file can be seen as “a copy of the original media file [i.e., a
5
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
parent file].” App. Br. 4. However, Lee teaches a different process from
Appellant, i.e., a process of splitting a multimedia file into a number of small
capacity files and transmits them in order to safely download large capacity
multimedia files and reproduce multimedia data in high quality while
downloading files. Lee 11. According to Lee, a multimedia file is split into
a plurality of files “whose file sizes are appointed” and a separate header file
is then created to contain split information, i.e., connection or configuration
information of split files used to connect split files for subsequent
reproduction. Lee Tflf 31—35, 56—57, 60, 86.
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, neither the cited paragraph 56
nor paragraph 71 of Lee teaches or suggests any “reading a first Universally
Unique Identifier (UUID) in a header of a parent file, the parent file being an
original file” as alleged by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 3). Instead, we
find paragraph 71 of Lee describes the use of an ENSplitter 210, shown in
Figure 6, configured to split an original multimedia file into a plurality of
files 620, and to create a header file saving connection information of split
files. Lee 171. Similarly, we find paragraph 56 of Lee describes a
client/player 500, shown in Figure 5, configured to download split files in
parallel and reproduce the original file by reading the connection or
configuration information of split files in the header file 610. Lee | 56.
Likewise, we find paragraph 89 of Lee refers to Figure 13, which
“shows a process of splitting an actual file and copying a header file based
on analyzed information” and the name of a split file can be in the form of a
GUID (Globally Unique Identifier). Lee 1 89. However, Lee’s copying a
header file does not teach or suggest Appellant’s claimed “generating a
6
Appeal 2017-000754
Application 13/471,440
second UUID” and “writing the second UUID to a header of a child file [that
is a copy of the original file]” as recited in claim 1.
Lastly, paragraph 99 of Lee describes a method for reproducing media
in which an ENSource 310 is used to analyze a header file 610 and restore
split files 620 based on the information recorded in the header file 610. Lee
199. However, we find Lee’s disclosure does not teach or suggest a
“lineage record associates] the first UUID [in the header of the parent file]
and the second UUID [in the header of the child file].”
For these reasons, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner has failed to show the combination of Lee, Mueller, and Zhou
teaches the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we decline to sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent
claims 2—5 and 10-19. App. Br. 6—8.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—5 and 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5 and
10-19.
REVERSED
7