Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

11948732 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
11/948,732 11/30/2007 Owen Taylor 05220.1209 (LI 160) 3291
14400 7590 03/16/2017
Patent Dneket AHminisitratnr
EXAMINER
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP DAYE, CHELCIE L
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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 OWEN TAYLOR
Appeal 2016-007796
Application 11/948,732
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21—29, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-007796
Application 11/948,732
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to query
processing. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a query from a client requesting a resource
and a property of the resource;
determining, by the processor, whether the property of the resource
resides in a data store;
in response to the determining that the property of the resource resides
in the data store:
querying the data store to identify the resource that matches the
query from the client and a value for the property of the resource;
tracking the value for the property and a record of clients that
have received a current instance of the value for the property in a
distribution map in the data store, the distribution map comprising an
indication of a stateful protocol that registers a connection to the
client;
examining the distribution map to determine whether the client
has already received the current instance of the value for the property
from the data store; and
suppressing a transmission of the current instance of the value
for the property when the client has already received the current
instance in view of the examining the distribution map.
Hoover
Hu
Arnold
Randall
References and Rejections
US 5,724,575
US 2008/0183699
US 7,747,747
US 8,543,700 B1
Mar. 3, 1998
July 31, 2008
June 29, 2010
Sept. 24, 2013
Claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21—29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu, Hoover, Randall, and Arnold.
2
Appeal 2016-007796
Application 11/948,732
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Hu, Hoover, and Randall
collectively teach “tracking the value for the property and a record of clients
that have received a current instance of the value for the property in a
distribution map in the data store,” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).
See App. Br. 9—11; Reply Br. 9—12.
The Examiner maps the claimed “distribution map” to Hoover’s map
table, and cites excerpts from Hoover’s columns 21, 24—25, and 34—35 for
teaching the disputed claim limitation. See Non-Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 6—7.
We have reviewed the cited Hoover portions, and they do not discuss
“tracking ... a record of clients that have received a current instance of the
value for the property in a distribution map,” as required by the claim.
Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited
Hoover portions teach the disputed claim limitation.
As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Hu and Randall do not
remedy the deficiencies of Hoover. See Non-Final Act. 3^4.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 11,21, and 27 recites a claim limitation
that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims
11,21, and 27. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 11,21, and 27.
3
Appeal 2016-007796
Application 11/948,732
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—9, 12—19, 22—26, 28, and 29.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 11—19, and
21-29.
REVERSED
4