Ex Parte Butler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201711493006 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/493,006 07/26/2006 Mark Henry Butler 82213817 7380 56436 7590 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com chris. mania @ hpe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK HENRY BUTLER, DAVID MURRAY BANKS, and SCOTT ALAN STANLEY Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 5, 6, 8—10, and 13—17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Introduction The claims are directed to a method of retrieving data from a data repository, and software and apparatus relating thereto. Spec., Abstract. Claims 5, 13, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 5. A method of providing data from a data repository to a client application, comprising: receiving an initial query from the client application; obtaining a first set of results from the data repository in response to the initial query; storing a sub-set of the first set of results in a cache of a server, wherein the cache is assigned a maximum number of consistent results that is linked to the size of the cache, wherein the first set of results exceeds the maximum number of consistent results, and wherein the subset of the first set of results comprises a number of results that falls within the maximum number of consistent results; providing a page of results to the initial query to the client application, the page containing a predetermined number of the first set of results that are to be returned in a single page of results; providing an indication of the total number of results contained in the first set of results to the initial query to the client application; 1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 22, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 10, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 9, 2014). 2 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3. 2 Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 providing an indication of the position of the page's results within the first set of results; and providing an indication of the results in the sub-set of the first set of results, wherein the indication of the results comprises an indication of a first and last result of the sub-set of the first set of results. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gross US 2004/0133564 A1 July 8,2004 Ewing US 2004/0236726 A1 Nov. 25,2004 Sauermann US 2005/0027694 A1 Feb. 3,2005 Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 5, 6, 8—10, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sauermann and Gross. Final Act. 4—9. Claims 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sauermann, Gross, and Ewing. Final Act. 9—12. ANALYSIS Appellants contend that Sauermann fails to disclose storing a subset of the first set of results in a cache of a server, wherein the cache is assigned a maximum number of consistent results that is linked to the size of the cache wherein the first set of results exceeds the maximum number of consistent results, and wherein the sub-set of the first set of results comprises a number of results that falls within the maximum number of consistent results as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that “claim 5 recites that less than all of the results in the first set of results are stored in a cache of a server” that is not supported by Sauermann 135, which “discusses that ‘all 3 Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 of the data rows from the database containing’ each of the tables that meet the query criteria [are] saved in a cache table.” App. Br. 9 (quoting Sauermann 135). Thus, Appellants argue that “less than all of the results that meet the query criteria are not saved in a cache table.” App. BR. 9. Appellants also argue that Sauermann fails to disclose “storing a sub set of the first set of results in a cache of a server, wherein the cache is assigned a maximum number of consistent results that is linked to the size of the cache” as recited in independent claim 5. App. Br. 10. Paragraph 5 of Sauermann cited by the Examiner “discusses that the number of items that are displayed on a display is limited by the number of items that fit on the display and not by the size of a cache” as required in the claims. App. Br. 10. Appellants contend that the background section discussion of search results in paragraph 5 of Sauermann does not correspond to the sub-set allegedly discussed in paragraph 35 of Sauermann. App. Br. 11. Appellants further assert that Gross does not disclose “wherein the cache is assigned a maximum number of consistent results that is linked to the size of the cache” as recited in independent claim 5. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that paragraph 122 of Gross cited by the Examiner, does not teach or “state that ‘[t]he user may set the number of search result that should be stored in the cache’ as the [EJxaminer asserts.” Reply Br. 6 (quoting Ans. 3). “Instead, at best, [Appellants assert], Gross discusses that the number of Web pages that are pre-cached may be some predetermined quantity.” Reply Br. 6. Appellants contend that the specific embodiment cited in Gross, which states that the maximum number of pre-cached search results can be “set to be equal to the number of search results that can be displayed in the list pane,” fails to disclose that the maximum number of 4 Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 search results stored cached is linked to the size of the cache. Gross refers to the number of results that can be displayed in a list pane, which is not linked to the size of a cache as the claims require. App. Br. 12. The Examiner contends that “Sauermann discloses input of query into search field and display the result of the search on the user interface” where “[t]he search result is display with an indication of the total number of search result and the number of result that fit within display pane. The indicator provides information about number of result that can be view on each page (see para. [0005] and para. [003 5]).” The Examiner cites Gross as disclosing that “[t]he user may set the number of search result that should be stored in the cache” as evidenced by the disclosure that “the number of search result to be cached may be set to be equaled to the display area size (see para. [0122]).” Ans. 3. With respect to the combination of references, the Examiner asserts that: It is well understood in the art that cache storage are very limited and the number of data that can be stored on it depends on its size. Based on the disclosure of Gross, the number of search result stored in the cache may be set to equal to the size of the cache . . . [such that] Sauermann and Gross disclose[] each and every feature of claim 5. Ans. 3^4. Appellants and Examiner differ over whether Sauermann and Gross teach the “wherein the cache is assigned a maximum number of consistent results that is linked to the size of the cache” limitation of claim 5. The Examiner reasons that Gross teaches that “[t]he user may set the number of search result that should be stored in the cache” and that storage in cache is known to be limited by size of the cache. Ans. 3^4. 5 Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s record that Gross discloses “assigning] a maximum number of consistent results that is linked to the size of the cache’ '’ as recited in claim 5. The Examiner’s statement that “the number of search result stored in the cache may be set to equal to the size of the cache” is not sufficient and not supported by the teaching of Gross, which relates the maximum number of results to the size of display pane. On the present record, the Examiner has not shown that Gross teaches the number of Web pages that are pre-cached may be some predetermined quantity this is set based on the cache. The Examiner also has not identified sufficient teachings in Sauermann or Gross to suggest that the number of search results is “linked” to the size of the cache as required in claim 5. Although cache size “may” be a factor in setting the maximum number of consistent results, the Examiner has not persuasively shown on this record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would set such a maximum. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and independent claims 13 and 16, which recite similar limitations. With respect to dependent claims 14, 15, and 17, the Examiner contends that Sauermann | 5 and Figure 1 discloses pages of an initial search are shown on a page-by-page basis such that each page is a “second set of results” that teaches “providing an indication that the second set of results is outside of a consistency range of the first set of results” as recited in claims 14 and related limitations in claims 15 and 17. Appellant responds and we agree that Sauermann 15 and Figure 1 show searches ranked from 1 to 85, where only the first eight search results are displayed. Reply Br. 7—9. The Examiner has not identified any subsequent search in Sauermann or provided a construction or argument that 6 Appeal 2014-004758 Application 11/493,006 shows how Sauermann discloses “providing an indication that the second set of results is outside of a consistency range of the first set of results.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 14, 15, and 17. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in finding that claims 5, 6, 8—10, 13, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sauermann and Gross; and claims 14, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Sauermann, Gross, and Ewing. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 8—10, and 13—17 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation