Ex Parte Angarita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2017

14024369 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 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.
14/024,369 09/11/2013 Roger Angarita G225.P16B42 5387
33356 7590 06/21/2017
SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
310 N. WESTLAKE BLVD. STE 120
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362
EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 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):
USPTO@socalip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER ANGARITA and SHAWN MCCREIGHT
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,3691
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which constitute all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Guidance Software, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to processing a plurality of electronic
items for review. Abstract; Spec. 4—6; Fig. 3A. Claim 1 is exemplary of
the matter on appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method for storing a plurality of electronic items, the method
comprising:
receiving, by a processing device comprising a processor and
memory, the plurality of electronic items;
for each item of the electronic items, each item being associated
with an item identifier, segmenting, by the processing device each
item into a plurality of segments, wherein each segment of the
plurality of segments is a logical subunit of the item, and for each
segment of the plurality of segments:
hashing the segment to produce a segment hash value, wherein
at least one segment of a first item of the electronic items has a same
segment hash value as at least one segment of a second item of the
electronic items;
determining whether the segment hash value exists in a first
table;
in response to determining that the segment hash value does not
exist in the first table, adding an entry to the first table, the entry
associating the segment hash value with the segment;
in response to determining that the segment hash value does not
exist in the first table, refraining from adding the entry to the first
table for maintaining the first table with unique segments stored
therein', and
adding an entry to a second table, the entry associating the item
identifier with metadata related to the segment in the item, a segment
position corresponding to a location of the segment in the item, and
the segment hash value',
and outputting, from the processing device, the first table and
the second table.
2
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1—3, 7, 8, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Beaman et al. (US 2010/0217953 Al; pub. Aug.
26, 2010) (“Beaman”) in view of Loeb (US 2007/0192564 Al; pub. Aug.
16,2007). Final Act. 15-22.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beaman, Loeb, and Salaka et al. (US 2012/0054135 Al;
pub. Mar. 1, 2012) (“Salaka”). Final Act. 23-24.
Claims 6 and 9—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beaman, Loeb, and Anbalagan et al. (US 2010/0054600
Al; pub. Mar. 4, 2010) (“Anbalagan”). Final Act. 25—31.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Aiken (US 6,658,626 Bl; iss. Dec. 2, 2003) in view of Asikainen et al.
(US 2011/0238679, pub. Sept. 29, 2011) (“Asikainen”). Final Act. 31-33.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Aiken (US 6,658,626 Bl; iss. Dec. 2, 2003). Final Act.
34—35.
ANALYSIS
The § 103 rejection of claims 1—3, 7, 8, 20, 23, and 24
Appellants argue Beaman and Loeb do not teach the claim 1
limitation wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is a logical
235 U.S.C§§ 101 and 112 rejections are withdrawn. See Final Act. 53; Ans.
12.
3
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
subunit of the item. Br. 5. According to Appellants, the Examiner errs in
finding Beaman teaches this limitation because the Beaman segments refer
to portions of a hash table rather than a logical subunit of the item. Id. at 5—
6 (citing Beaman Figs. 3, 4, | 61; Abstr.).
Appellants argue Beaman and Loeb do not teach the claim 1
limitation adding an entry to a second table, the entry associating the item
identifier with metadata related to the segment in the item, a segment
position corresponding to a location of the segment in the item, and the
segment hash value. Id. at 6. According to Appellants, the Examiner errs in
finding Beaman teaches this limitation because Beaman does not disclose a
second hash table that includes entries associating the item ... Id. (citing
Beaman || 46—54,161). Appellants argue Beaman’s “second table” merely
receives entries flushed from a “first table” when the first table reaches a
threshold load factor. Id. (citing Beaman | 55).
Appellants further argue Beaman and Loeb do not teach the claim 1
limitation refraining from adding the entry to the first table for maintaining
the first table with unique segments stored therein. Id. In particular,
Appellants argue the Examiner acknowledges Beaman does not teach this
limitation but errs in finding Loeb teaches this limitation because Loeb
merely discloses a technique for handling collision between a value and a
value already stored. Id.
The Examiner finds Beaman teaches data objects assigned with a
unique identifier. Ans. 3 (citing Beaman Fig. lb; 141 wherein data objects
10, 12, 14 are associated with unique identifier elements 11, 13, 15). The
Examiner finds Beaman teaches data structure with logically divided
4
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
segments into subsegments. Id. (citing Figs. 3, 4; 161 wherein elements 31,
33,35 correspond to the logical subunit of the item).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Beaman’s segments refer to
portions of a hash table rather than the logical subunit, the Examiner finds
“Beaman not only supports memory data structure having hash table
specifically defining ‘segments’ fig 3, elements 30, 32, 34, but also logically
divided segments into sub-segments indexed for example fig 3, elements 31,
33,35.” Id. 3. The Examiner additionally finds Beaman’s teaching is
identical to the Specification segment table 410 which stores a list of entries
in the table 3 A and is part of the data structure. Id. at 3^4. (citing Spec. 1
59,11. 18-21; Figs. 3A, 4).
The Examiner finds Loeb teaches, “in response to determining that the
segment hash value does not exist in the first table, adding an entry to the
first table, the entry associating the segment hash value with the segment.”
Ans. 7 (citing Abstr. || 32, 46-48; Figs. 2—6). Regarding refraining from
adding the entry, the Examiner finds the entries are further examined and in
certain situations, e.g., to reduce collisions, are not added to the first table.
Id. (citing | 56; see also 1 55).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Regarding the term logical subunit, while not
defined in the Specification, the term is used, for example, as “. . .each
segment may correspond to a single sentence, a single line of text, a block of
computer code, an image, a table, or other logical subunits of a larger item
(emphasis added).” Spec. 1 52. Claim terms in a patent application are
given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
5
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants present no persuasive argument that the claim terms
should be limited to exclude the combined teaching of the cited references
and present no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings and claim
interpretations are unreasonable or overbroad. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 20 which
Appellants argue include similar limitations as claim 1 and rely on the
arguments presented for claim 1, supra. Br. 6—7. Regarding dependent
claims 2, 3, 7, 23 and 24, Appellants rely on dependency and, therefore, we
sustain the rejection of these claims. Id. at 7.
The §103 rejection of claims 4—6 and 9—19
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 5 over Beaman,
Loeb, and Salaka, Appellants rely on dependency and that Salaka does not
cure the deficiencies of Beaman and Loeb. Id. As discussed, supra, we find
no deficiencies in Beaman and Loeb. See also Final Act. 23—24. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 6 and 9-19 over Beaman,
Loeb, and Anbalagan, Appellants rely on dependency and that Anbalagan
does not cure the deficiencies of Beaman and Loeb. Id. As discussed, supra,
we find no deficiencies in Beaman and Loeb. Appellants present a
conclusory argument that Anbalagan “fails to disclose, teach or suggest the
limitations of claims 6 and 9—19.” We are not persuaded by this argument.
See also Final Act. 25—31. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6
and 9-19.
6
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
The §103 rejection of claim 22
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Aiken teaches the claim
22 limitation segmenting each [of] the plurality of items into a plurality of
segments, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is a logical
subunit of the item, wherein the logical subunit is a paragraph, a sentence,
of a line of text.'” Br. 8—9 (citing Aiken 16:60-17:7). According to
Appellants, the cited portion of Aiken, reproduced below, does not support
the Examiner’s finding because it teaches that the Aiken “content segments”
are not a “logical subunit of the item” and Asikainen does not cure the
deficiency:
Frame 602 contains two overview bars 608 and 610. Each
overview bar corresponds to a document and is identified by the
location (e.g. path) and name of the document. Frame 604 contains the
actual content of a Document A. Document A has numerous content
segments (e.g. paragraphs in a written report, methods in a computer
program, etc.). Frame 606 contains a Document B which was compared
to Document A. Document B is also made up of numerous content
segments. The content segments in both documents are shown to
illustrate features of the user interface and do not necessarily
represent logical "segments" of content when each document is
viewed individually, (emphasis added).
Id. at 7 (citing Aiken 16:60-17:7).
The Examiner finds Aiken teaches comparing documents, wherein the
documents are divided into multiple segments such as paragraphs that match
with other segments. Ans. 13 (citing Aiken Abstr., Fig. 6, 16:62—67, 17:1—
17). The Examiner finds Aiken’s segments are logically formed as a
paragraph, sentence, or text from the overall document. Id.
While the Examiner does not expressly address Appellants’ cited
portion of Aiken (i.e., “[t]he content segments in both documents are shown
7
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
to illustrate features of the user interface and do not necessarily represent
logical ‘segments’ of content when each document is viewed individually
(17:1—4)”), we find the Examiner has sufficiently shown that Aiken
describes the disputed limitation.
Moreover, Appellants’ cited portion of Aiken recites the terms “not
necessarily” and, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error. Additionally, we note Appellants’ argument is conclusory
and Appellants present no reply to rebut the Examiner’s findings
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants present no persuasive argument to
limit the broad but reasonable interpretation of logical subunit to exclude the
teaching of Aiken’s segments. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 22.
The § 102(a) rejection of claim 21
Appellants present the same arguments regarding the teaching of
Aiken in the § 102(a) rejection of claim 21 as in the § 103 rejection of claim
22, supra, (the “content segments” of Aiken are not a “logical subunit of the
item”). Br. 9—10.
The Examiner makes similar findings regarding claim 21 and Aiken’s
teaching as made for claim 22, supra. Ans. 16—17. While the Examiner
does not expressly address Appellants’ cited portion of Aiken (i.e., “[t]he
content segments in both documents are shown to illustrate features of the
user interface and do not necessarily represent logical ‘segments’ of content
when each document is viewed individually (17:1—4)”), we find the
Examiner has sufficiently shown that Aiken describes the disputed
limitation, as required for anticipation. A claim is anticipated only if each
8
Appeal 2017-004778
Application 14/024,369
and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or
inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as required
by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Moreover, Appellants’ cited portion of Aiken recites the terms “not
necessarily” and, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error. Additionally, we note Appellants’ argument is conclusory
and Appellants present no reply to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 and 22—24 under
35U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(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
9