Ex Parte Tang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2014

11996485 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FENG WEI TANG
____________

Appeal 2011-008064
Application 11/996,485
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 12-15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Geiger (US 2002/0073298 A1, pub. Jun. 13,
2002) and Lau (US 6,832,380 B1, iss. Dec. 14, 2004). We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-008064
Application 11/996,485

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 10,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
10. An adaptive session compression management
method in an application server, comprising:
acquiring session state information indicated
as needing to be saved from a session manager in
the application server and buffering the session
state information in a session state information
buffer component, wherein the session state
information is transferred from the session
manager to the session state information buffer
component through an interface between the
session manager and the session state information
buffer component;
retrieving configuration information set by a
user or system administrator from a configuration
file;
determining whether the session state
information is to be compressed according to a size
of the session state information and the
configuration information related to conditions of
system resources;
determining a compressor and compression
method according to the conditions of the system
resources of the application server in case that the
session state information needs to be compressed,
so as to compress the session state information;
and
storing the session state information at a
specified 1ocation in the session manager, and in
case that the session state information is
compressed, storing type information of a
corresponding compressor together with the
session state information.
Appeal 2011-008064
Application 11/996,485

3
OPINION
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19
The Appellant argues independent claims 1, 10, and 19 as a group.
Br. 6-10. We select claim 10 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Appellant contends that the combined teachings of Geiger and
Lau do not disclose “determining whether the session state information is to
be compressed according to a size of the session state information and the
configuration information related to conditions of system resources,” as
recited in claim 10. Br. 8-10. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that Geiger discloses “[d]etermining whether the
data is to be compressed according to a size of the data and configuration
information related to conditions of system resources.” Ans. 5; see also
Ans. 11. In supporting this finding, the Examiner relies on, inter alia,
Geiger’s paragraphs [0016] and [0081]. Ans. 5 and 11. These paragraphs of
Geiger disclose that, in one embodiment, the Compressed Memory
Management Unit (CMMU) 214 manages system memory 218 on page
granularity. The Examiner understands the term “granularity” to include
size. See Ans. 11. In addition, Geiger’s paragraph [0081] states that “[i]n
one embodiment, the page size is programmable” (italics added). The
Examiner determines:
one of ordinary skill in the art can easily recognize[] that the
compression process in Geiger deals greatly with the size of
each page (e.g.[,] size of the information) stored in the
memory and the current amount of available memory space
of the system (e.g.[,] configuration information related to
conditions of system resource).
Id.
Appeal 2011-008064
Application 11/996,485

4
The Examiner also finds that “Geiger d[oes] not specifically teach that
the data is session state information.” Ans. 6. The Examiner relies on Lau
to remedy this deficiency of Geiger with regard to the aforementioned
limitation of claim 10, by finding that Lau discloses “compress[ing] data
such as session state information.” Ans. 6. (citing Lau, col. 7, ll. 62-66 and
col. 8, ll. 40-67). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to
combine the teachings of Geiger and Lau in order
to apply the compressing method taught by Geiger
to any types of data such as session state
information of Lau’s system to reduce the size of
data for faster transferring.
Ans. 6.
The Appellant contends that Geiger discloses that its CMMU “may
keep least recently used pages compressed and most recently and/or
frequently used pages uncompressed in physical memory” and that such
concerns “the time or the frequency of use of the session state information.”
Br. 8-9. This contention is unpersuasive because it does not explain why the
combination of Geiger’s disclosure regarding the Compressed Memory
Management Unit (CMMU) managing system memory on page granularity,
e.g., page size, with Lau’s disclosure regarding the compression of session
state information does not correspond to “determining whether the session
state information is to be compressed according to a size of the session state
information and the configuration information related to conditions of
system resources,” as recited in claim 10.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 as unpatentable over
Geiger and Lau is sustained.
Appeal 2011-008064
Application 11/996,485

5
Dependent claims 3-6, 9, 12-15, and 18
The Appellant presents separate subheadings for claims 3 and 12,
claims 4 and 13, claims 5 and 14, claims 6 and 15, and claims 9 and 18. Br.
10-11. However, for the following reasons, the Appellant has not provided
separate arguments against the rejection of the dependent claims. First, the
Appellant recites the added limitations from the dependent claims and
“submit[s] that the cited references do not disclose the specific limitations of
. . . [the claims] in the context of the present invention.” Br. 10-11. The
“mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art” does not constitute a
separate argument for patentability pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Second, the
Appellant comments that the dependent claims “are also believed to be
patentable because of their dependency on patentable independent [c]laims.”
Br. 10-11. For the reasons provided above, the Appellant’s contention
against the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 is unpersuasive. Since the
Appellant does not offer a cogent explanation as to why the Examiner’s
rejection is in error, the rejection of the dependent claims is sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 12-15, 18, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Geiger and Lau.

Appeal 2011-008064
Application 11/996,485

6
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh