Ex Parte Yaeger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2010

10402643 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Ex parte FRANK L. YAEGER
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to improved data
processing, and specifically, to translating selected characters within records
processed by a data processing system (Spec. 2, ll. 7-9).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 8 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
8. A system for translating and sorting data records, the
system comprising: a sort utility configured to concurrently
process data records at two or more stages of a data pipeline, to
input, translate characters, sort, and output a plurality of data
records as specified by at least one formatting option within a
control statement.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Archer 4,873,625 Oct. 10, 1989

Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

3
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
the teachings of Phillips.

II. ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in determining that Archer
discloses a sort utility configured to “translate characters” (claim 8).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Archer
1. Archer discloses that it is well-known that a sorting program such as
DFSORT program performs collating functions on data records
having control fields containing EBCDIC or ASCII code characters
(col. 1, ll. 49-57).
2. The DFSORT program performs its collating functions on input
strings of records comprising characters drawn from the English
alphabet and the decimal and binary number systems (col. 1, ll. 57-
61).
3. Archer also discloses that it is well-known to provide a
SORT/MERGE-Kanji/Chinese (SMKC) program which performs
input processing on non-EBCDIC record lists and then invokes the
DFSORT program (col. 2, ll. 4-17). The SMKC program provides
Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

4
modification of input string data elements through the translation of
Japanese-language collating characteristics to counterpart binary data
characteristics, which enables the DFSORT program to permute or
combine input strings of Japanese-language characters by means of
reference to a variety of collating sequence tables which map
Japanese-language collating characteristics into binary data
counterparts (col. 2, ll. 26-39).
4. Archer adapts a sorting program, such as DFSORT, to recognize and
respond to non-EBCDIC records by providing an extended function
support (EFS) program, wherein the EFS program is executable
against data records with EBCDIC or ASCII characteristics (col. 2, ll.
42-53).
5. Archer involves the execution of the sorting program 21 in
cooperation with the execution of the EFS program 22, wherein the
interfaces between the two programs support their concurrent
execution (col. 5, ll. 48-57; Fig. 1).
6. The EFS program modifies sorting program control statements
executable against data records having collating characteristics not
recognized by the sorting program and translates the collating
characteristics to counterpart collating characteristics recognized by
the sorting program (col. 2, ll. 51-60).
Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

5
7. A data record comprises one or more control fields, each control field
containing a predetermined type of collating data to be used for
conducting a collating procedure (col. 7, ll. 15-19).
8. The collating characteristics comprise EBCDIC, ISCII or ASCII-type
characters or numerals in decimal or binary format (col. 8, ll. 44-47).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, 14, 17, and 20
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of claims 1, 8, 14, 17, and 20 (App. Br. 8). Therefore, we select
independent claim 8 as being representative of the cited claims. Id.
Although Appellant argues in the Appeal Brief that “Archer does not
disclose translating characters of a record” (App. Br. 7), Appellant admits
in the Reply Brief that Archer discloses in the Background of the Invention
“that IBM’s DFSORT program translates characters” (Reply Br. 3).
Although Appellant also argues that “[t]his section does not teach that
DFSORT operates in conjunction with a pipeline” (id.), this argument is not
commensurate in scope with the language of claim 8. That is, claim 8
merely requires that the sort utility is configured, among other things, to
“translate characters,” without requiring that these characters are “of a
record” or that this translation is “in conjunction with a pipeline” as
Appellant argues.
Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

6
Archer discloses that it is well-known that a sorting program such as
DFSORT program performs collating functions on data records having
control fields containing EBCDIC or ASCII code characters, wherein the
DFSORT program performs its collating functions on input strings of
records comprising characters drawn from the English alphabet and the
decimal and binary number systems (FF 1-2). Archer also discloses that it is
well-known to provide an SMKC program to enable the DFSORT program
to permute (i.e. translate) or combine input strings of Japanese-language
characters (FF 3). As Appellant admits, DFSORT, as disclosed by Archer,
“translates characters” (Reply Br. 3).
We find that claim 8’s “sort utility configured to… translate
characters” reads on DFSORT as disclosed by Archer. Accordingly, we find
no error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 8 over Archer.
Since Appellant does not provide separate arguments from claim 8 with
respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 17, and 20, claims 1, 14,
17, and 20 fall with claim 8.
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellant’s above-identified
contention that Archer does not teach that “DFSORT operates in conjunction
with a pipeline” (Reply Br. 3). Though claim 1 falling with claim 8 does
recite a “pipeline,” claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “pipeline”
means, includes or represents. We interpret a “pipeline” as a sequence of
stages in a process.
Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

7
Archer discloses using adapting DFSORT to recognize and respond to
non-EBCDIC records by providing an extended function support (EFS)
program (FF 4). The execution of the sorting program is in cooperation with
the execution of the EFS program, wherein the interfaces between the two
programs support their concurrent execution (FF 5). A skilled artisan would
have understood the two separate and distinct programs, i.e. DFSORT
program and the extended EFS program, to be concurrently executed in
different stages of a process. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant and
find that Archer’s DFSORT operates in conjunction with a pipeline, wherein
the pipeline comprises concurrently executing DFSORT and EFS stages.
In the Appeal Brief, though Appellant argues that Archer “modifies
entire control statements within a record” instead of translating selected
characters from a record (App. Br. 8), Appellant admits that Archer
discloses “translating collating characteristics” (App. Br. 9). We note that
the scope of the claims does not preclude any modification of control
statements but rather merely requires the translation of characters. That is,
nothing in the claims requires the translation of characters be performed
instead of and not in addition to the modification of control statements, as
Appellant contends.
Archer discloses that a data record comprises collating characteristics
(FF 6-7), wherein collating characteristics comprise selected characters (FF
8). The skilled artisan would have understood Archer’s collating
characteristics to comprise selected characters from a data record, and thus,
Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

8
would have understood Archer’s translation of collating characteristics to
comprise translation of selected characters from a data record.
As to dependent claims 4 and 5, Appellant repeats that cited text of
Archer “only describes modifying control statements, not translating
characters of a data record” (App. Br. 8-9). Similarly, as to dependent
claims 7, 12, 13, 21, and 22, though Appellant admits that Archer “teaches
using tables” (App. Br. 10), Appellant repeats the argument that Archer
teaches that “non-recognized control statements” are converted instead of
“selected characters are translated” (Id.). However, as discussed above, we
find Archer to disclose translation of characters. Accordingly, claims 4, 5, 7,
12, 13, 21, and 22 fall with claims 1, 8, 14, 17, and 20.
As to dependent claims 6 and 11, Appellant argues that “Archer does
not teach translating selected characters of either the control statements or of
data records” and that “control records are not equivalent to data records”
(Reply Br. 5). However, such argument is not commensurate in scope with
the language of claims 6 and 11 since the claims do not require any
translation of characters of data records. In particular, claim 1 from which
claim 6 depends merely requires “translating selected characters from a
record” while claim 8 from which claim 11 depends merely requires “a sort
utility configured to… translate characters.”

Appeal 2008-005649
Application 10/402,643

9
V. CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in finding that claims 1-24 are
anticipated by the teachings of Archer.
(2) Claims 1-24 are not patentable over the prior art of record.
VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb

KUNZLER NEEDHAM MASSEY & THORPE
8 EAST BROADWAY
SUITE 600
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111