Ex Parte Blomquist et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2012

11084519 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT A. BLOMQUIST and ROBERT G. WARD
___________

Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for analyzing incoming
traffic from a computer network (e.g., Asynchronous Transfer Mode or
ATM). The method can identify and tag data prior to filtering, according to
identifying information contained in the data. A look-up table (e.g., Content
Addressable Memory or CAM) can be used to map tags to the identifying
information and used to provide the tag based on the identifying information
in the data. (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A method for filtering data from an electronic interface
comprising the steps of:
associating a tag with at least one data type;
mapping the tag to at least one data identifier;
receiving the data having a cell data identifier from the
electronic interface;
assigning the tag to the data if the cell data identifier matches
the at least one data identifier; and
filtering the data based on the tag.

11. A system for filtering data from an electronic interface
comprising:
a look-up table capable of storing at least one data type
associated with at least one data identifier, said look-up table capable
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

3
of determining if a cell data identifier matches said at least one data
identifier;
a mapper/loader capable of determining a mapping between a
tag and said at least one data type, said mapper/loader being capable
of loading said look-up table with said mapping; and
a line interface capable of receiving the data from the electronic
interface, said line interface capable of providing the data to said look-
up table, wherein said look-up table is capable of assigning said tag
to the data to prepare the data for filtering if said cell data identifier
matches said at least one data identifier.

19. A computer data signal embodied in electromagnetic
signals traveling over a communications network carrying
information capable of causing a computer electronically connected to
the communications network to practice the method of claim 1.

Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Choi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2001/0030966 Al; Oct. 18, 2001).
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Choi and Zhang (U.S. Patent No. 5,535,193; Jul. 9,
1996).

ANALYSIS
§ 101 Rejection
With respect to claims 19 and 20, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments (Br. 5-9) that these claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
statutory subject matter.
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

4
The Examiner found that “claim 19 is directed to a computer data
signal embodied in electromagnetic signals” and accordingly, “[t]his subject
matter does not fall within a statutory category of invention because it is
neither a process, machine, manufacture, nor a composition of matter.”
(Ans. 3, 26-28.) Similarly, the Examiner found that “claim 20 is directed to
a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave” and accordingly, “[t]his
subject matter does not fall within a statutory category of invention because
it is neither a process, machine, manufacture, nor a composition of matter.”
(Ans. 4, 26-28.) We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 19 recites “[a] computer data signal embodied in
electromagnetic signals traveling over a communications network carrying
information” (emphasis added). Claim 20 recites “[a] computer readable
medium having instructions embodied therein” (emphasis added).
Appellants’ Specification states that “[c]ommon forms of at least one
computer-readable medium 16A can include . . . a carrier wave.”
(Spec. ¶ [0026].)
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “computer data
signal embodied in electromagnetic signals traveling over a communications
network carrying information” of claim 19 and the “computer readable
medium” of claim 20 encompass transitory signals. Accordingly, dependent
claims 19 and 20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. See In re
Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory,
propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter.’ . . . [T]hus, such a signal cannot be patentable
subject matter.”); see also MPEP § 2106 (I) (“Non-limiting examples of
claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories . . . [include]
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

5
transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical
or electromagnetic signal per se.”).
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner alleges that the claims are
directed to ‘a form of energy’ and equates this with a Law of Nature” but
“rather than proceeding to determine if the claimed subject matter is
nevertheless still patentable subject matter, the Examiner concludes without
basis that claims 19 and 20, are not sanctioned as patentable subject matter.”
(Br. 6.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner concluded that
claims 19 and 20 do not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
“computer data signal embodied in electromagnetic signals traveling over a
communications network carrying information” or claimed “computer
readable medium” does not fall within one of the statutory categories of
“process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” (Ans. 3-4, 26-
28.)
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner has not shown that
claims 19 and 20 are transitory signals” and thus, “the analysis of the
rejection is flawed.” (Br. 8.) However, as discussed previously, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, electromagnetic signals are interpreted as
transitory forms of signal transmission. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-
57; see also MPEP § 2106 (I).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that dependent claims 19 and 20
are not directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

6
§ 102 Rejection
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 11-12) that Choi
does not describe the limitation “a tag . . . mapping the tag to at least one
data identifier,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the ATM Cell Header of Choi corresponds
to the claimed “tag.” (Ans. 5, 33; Choi, Fig. 4.) The Examiner further found
that the Virtual Path Identifier/Virtual Channel Identifier (VPI/VCI) of the
ATM cell header of Choi corresponds to the limitation “mapping the tag to
at least one data identifier.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner.
Choi relates to “an ATM [asynchronous transfer mode] cell
transmitting/receiving device using an AAL2 (ATM adaptation layer 2).”
(¶ [0002].) Figure 2 of Choi illustrates an ATM cell transmitting device that
includes a controlling unit 10, a time slot input unit 20, a packet processing
unit 30, a Content Addressable Memory (CAM) 40, an ATM cell
transmitting unit 50, and a timer 60. (¶ [0041].) Figure 4 of Choi illustrates
that the ATM Cell Header (i.e., the claimed “tag”) is inclusive of the VPI
and the VCI (i.e., the claimed “at least one data identifier”) and thus, Choi
teaches “mapping the tag to at least one data identifier.”
Appellants argue that “the Office Action equates the ‘tag’. . . with the
ATM cell header comprising a VPI, VCI, Payload type, etc.” and “then
alleges that this ‘tag’ maps to the following (same) information: VPI, VCI,
Payload type, etc.” (Br. 11.) Accordingly, Appellants argue, “assuming
arguendo that the ATM cell header is properly a tag, it cannot be, therefore,
the data identifier to which it is mapped.” (Id.) However, this argument is
not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not exclude
the data identifier from being a subset of the tag. Furthermore, the claim
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

7
language “a tag . . . mapping the tag to at least one data identifier” is broad
enough to encompass the ATM Cell Header and the VPI/VCI of Choi
because the ATM Cell Header is associated with and inclusive of the
VPI/VCI.
Appellants further argue that “there is no basis provided in the applied
art that the inclusion of a piece of information results from the mapping of a
tag” and “the terms VPI and VCI do not explicitly show that they are data
identifiers, and in fact do not include the term data.” (Br. 12.) However, the
claim language “at least one data identifier” is broad enough to encompass
the VPI/VCI (i.e., Virtual Path Identifier/Virtual Channel Identifier) of Choi.
Additionally, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 31), dependent claim 4 recites
“wherein the at least one data identifier is a virtual channel identifier (VCI)”
(emphases added).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Choi describes the
limitation “a tag . . . mapping the tag to at least one data identifier.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 13-14) that
Choi does not describe the limitation “wherein said look-up table is capable
of assigning said tag to the data to prepare the data for filtering if said cell
data identifier matches said at least one data identifier,” as recited in
independent claim 11.
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

8
The Examiner found that the ATM Cell Header of Choi, including the
VPI/VCI, corresponds to the claimed “tag.” (Ans. 13; Choi, ¶ [0068].) The
Examiner also found that the CAM 203 of Choi corresponds to the claimed
“look-up table . . . capable of assigning said tag to the data to prepare the
data for filtering if said cell data identifier matches said at least one data
identifier.” (Ans. 14; Choi, ¶ [0068].) We agree with the Examiner.
Choi explains that when a call is connected, a CAM 203 stores the
VPI/VCI (i.e., the claimed “tag”) and an ATM buffer number (ATM ID)
(i.e., the claimed “cell data identifier”) is outputted from a controlling
unit 100 in a look-up table. (¶ [0068].) Choi also explains that the
CAM 203 outputs an ATM ID matching an input VPI/VCI to a cell
segmenting unit 202 (i.e. the claimed “filtering if said cell data identifier
matches said at least one data identifier”). (Id.) Therefore, Choi teaches the
limitation “wherein said look-up table is capable of assigning said tag to the
data to prepare the data for filtering if said cell data identifier matches said at
least one data identifier.”
Appellants argue that “there is no disclosure [in Choi] of at least
determining if a cell data identifier matches at least one data identifier.”
(Br. 14.) However, Appellants do not point out with particularity or explain
why this limitation is not taught by Choi. As discussed previously, as found
by the Examiner, the CAM 203 of Choi corresponds to the claimed “look-up
table . . . capable of assigning said tag to the data to prepare the data for
filtering if said cell data identifier matches said at least one data identifier.”
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Choi describes the
limitation “wherein said look-up table is capable of assigning said tag to the
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

9
data to prepare the data for filtering if said cell data identifier matches said at
least one data identifier.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 12, 15, and 18-20 depend from claim 11, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 15, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 11.

§ 103 Rejection
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 separately (Br. 16), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants summarily allege that
“[f]or at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully submits that
the applied art fails to disclose at least one feature of claim 11.” (Id.) We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 11, from which claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.

DECISION
The decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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
Appeal 2010-000794
Application 11/084,519

10

msc