Ex Parte Butler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

11493006 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
11/493,006 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