Ex Parte Chane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

10306752 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
10/306,752 11/27/2002 Lena D. Chane 007412.01067 8310
71867 7590 03/31/2017
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
GMAHL, NAVNEET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
PTO-71867 @bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LENA D. CHANE, DAVID BRANDYBERRY,
ALEX CHUNG, ALI CRAKES, SITHAMPARA BABU NIRANJAN,
and VIVA CHU
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 14, 22, and 24—35. See App. Br. 10.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15—21, and 23 have been canceled. December
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed May 27, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed November 10,
2014, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed April 7, 2015, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed June 5, 2015.
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
13, 2013 Amendment 2—5. On October 14, 2011, a different panel affirmed
the rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 9-14, and 16—23, which have since been
amended.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to broadcasting data for interactive
television. See Spec. 12. The technique involves packaging modules and
downloading modules that contain data and executable instructions for
resolving a query. Id. 20-23.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method, comprising:
packaging, by a first device, at least a portion of a
database into one or more data modules that include record
sets from the database, a code module that includes executable
instructions configured to be executed to resolve a query that
retrieves information from the record sets, and a contents
module that includes information indicating that the one or
more data modules are required to resolve the query and
information indicating that the code module is required to
resolve the query,
transmitting the contents module;
receiving, after transmitting the contents module, a
download request that provides an indication that the code
module is required to resolve the query at a second device; and
transmitting the code module responsive to the download
request.
The Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Szymanski US 6,148,081 Nov. 14,2000
Crinon US 2003/0005444 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
2
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 14, 22, and 24—35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Szymanski and Crinon. Final Act. 4—13.
THE CONTENTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 6
Regarding representative, independent claim 1, the Examiner finds
that Szymanski teaches all its limitations (Final Act. 4—5), except the
reference “does not disclose contents module, data modules [sic] created and
generated explicitly as claimed” {id. at 5). The Examiner turns to Crinon in
combination with Szymanski to teach the creation and generation of data
modules as recited. Id. (citing Crinon || 29, 30, 40, 43, 44, 68, 69).
Appellants argue that Szymanski only provides “general teachings”
concerning modules (App. Br. 11) that “lack specifics necessary to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the specific contents of the
one or more data modules, the code module, and the contents modules, as
recited in claim 1” {id.). See also App. Br. 10-12 (citing Szymanski 4:20-
41, 6:57—61). Appellants further contend that Szymanski does not teach the
recited “receiving” and second “transmitting” steps. App. Br. 12—13 (citing
Szymanski 1:18—56, 4:7—32). In particular, Appellants argue that the cited
passages do not teach or suggest “‘a download request that provides an
indication that the code module is required to resolve the query at a second
device,’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 12—13. Appellants acknowledge
that Szymanski teaches data and code may be downloaded after execution of
an application but that “timing constraints” on the downloading do not teach
the “receiving” and “transmitting” steps as recited. Id. at 13.
3
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
determining that Szymanski and Crinon collectively would have taught or
suggested:
(I) packaging at least a portion of a database into (a) “one or more
data modules that include record sets from the database,” (b) “a code module
that includes executable instructions configured to be executed to resolve a
query that retrieves information from the record sets,” and (c) “a contents
module that includes information indicating that the one or more data
modules are required to resolve the query and information indicating that the
code module is required to resolve the query”;
(II) “receiving ... a download request that provides an indication that
the code module is required to resolve the query at a second device”; and
(III) “transmitting the code module responsive to the download
request”?
ANALYSIS
I.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative, independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, “packaging ... at least a portion of a database into one or more data
modules . . ., a code module . . . and a contents module.” App. Br. 24
(Claims App’x). Appellants do not dispute Szymanski and Crinon, as
proposed (Final Act. 4—5), fail to teach the “packaging” feature of the
claims. App. Br. 10—12. Rather, the arguments focus on the “specific
arrangement” (id. at 10) and “specific contents of the one or more data
4
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
modules” (id. at 11). Additionally, although the Examiner states
“Szymanski. . . does not disclose contents module, data modules [sic]
created and generated explicitly as claimed” and turns to Crinon for this
purpose (Final Act. 5), the Examiner does not rely on Crinon to teach the
specific details of the modules as recited. See id.', see also Ans. 3. We thus
confine our discussion to whether Szymanski teaches the specifically-recited
contents.
A. “[0]ne or more data modules that include record sets
from the database”
The Examiner maps a data module that includes record sets to
columns 1 and 2 of Szymanski. See Ans. 3 (citing Szymanski 1:58—2:82).
This passage of Szymanski explains that an interactive television application
can consists of one or a set of program modules (e.g., a “carousel”).
Szymanski 1:58—2:1, 4:29—31. If the application is more than one module,
the first module is a directory module and the other modules contain other
information, including the code for the application. See id. at 1:61—65,
Fig. 3. Szymanski explains that the other “modules can contain any type of
data, such as application code, raw data or graphical information.” Id. at
4:31—33, cited in Ans. 3. Szymanski further teaches that the interactive
television applications are distributed from sources, including computers and
data storage devices, which include audio and video information. Id. at
4:59-64. Accordingly, Szymanski suggests that data module(s) include
2 The Examiner’s nomenclature for citing these passage is unorthodox. See
Ans. 3 (citing “column 1 — through column 2 lines 58 — 67 and 1 — 8”). For
purposes of this Opinion, we presume the Examiner intended to cite column
1, lines 58—67 and column 2, lines 1—8.
5
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
“record sets” (e.g., raw data or graphical information) from a database as
recited.
B. “[A] code module that includes executable instructions configured to be
executed to resolve a query that retrieves information from the record sets ”
The Examiner maps the “code module” to column 4 of Szymanski.
Ans. 3 (citing Szymanski 4:30-33). As discussed above, the cited passage
teaches the interactive application can have several modules and each of the
“modules can contain any type of data, such as application code, raw data or
graphical information.” Szymanski 4:31—33. As such, Szymanski further
teaches the application can include “a code module that includes executable
instructions” (e.g., application code) as recited.
Regarding whether this module is also a module that is “configured to
be executed to resolve a query that retrieves information from the record
sets” as recited, the Examiner refers to columns 1 and 2 and states this
passage includes “user input/query.” Ans. 3 (citing Szymanski 1:58—2:8).
Specifically, Szymanski provides an example where the interactive graphics
and audio of an interactive system may prompt the viewer for input.
Szymanski 1:52—55. Thus, Szymanski suggests that at least some of the
modules of the taught interactive application will produce a prompt for the
viewer and will respond to a viewer’s input (e.g., resolving a query).
We further determine that this teaching suggests to an ordinarily
skilled artisan, when employing inferences and creative steps, that the taught
modules (e.g., both data and code modules discussed above) would have
been needed to respond to the viewer’s input in certain scenarios. See id.
For example, the viewer may be prompted for an input that in turn executes
a code module (1) to allow a viewer to order advertised products, or (2) to
6
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
produce specialized information related to a program (e.g., retrieve record
sets related to the product or specialized information). See id. at 1:20—29.
Accordingly, Szymanski suggests, in certain scenarios, that the code
module taught by Szymanski “includes executable instructions configured to
be executed to resolve a query that retrieves information from the record
sets” as broadly as recited.
C. “[A] contents module that includes information indicating that
the one or more data modules are required to resolve the query
and information indicating that the code module is required
to resolve the query ”
The Examiner maps the “contents module” to columns 6 and 7 of
Szymanski. Ans. 3 (citing Szymanski 6:50—67, 7:10-29). Here, Szymanski
teaches the details of the “directory module” shown in Figure 3 that
“contains an entry for each of the modules in the application” (Szymanski
6:54—55) and “contains enough information to allow the interactive
television receiver to access all of the parts (i.e., modules) of the application
which may be necessary for execution of the program” {id. at 6:57—61).
Thus, this portion of Szymanski teaches a contents module that includes the
“one or more” required data modules and any required code module to
execute the interactive television application previously discussed.
Whether Szymanski also teaches the recited contents module
“includes information indicating that the one or more data modules are
required to resolve the query and information indicating that the code
module is required to resolve the query” (emphasis added), we initially note
that the disclosure does not use the language of “information indicating that
the one or more data modules are required to resolve the query and
information indicating that the code module is required to resolve the
7
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
query.” See generally Spec. In fact, Appellants cite numerous passages of
the Specification for support without specifically mapping this limitation.
See App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. Tflf 37, 39, 40, 44, 49—52, Fig. 1).
At best, the disclosure states that the “table of contents [module 108]
indicates] the data tables and code modules necessary to execute the query.”
Id. 1 51; see id. | 51, Fig. 1. Yet, the cited passages provide no examples of
how the table of contents indicates the data tables or code modules. As such,
we construe the recited “contents modules” that includes information
indicating the data module(s) and the code module are “required to resolve
the query” in a broad, but reasonable manner to include a module that
identifies the needed modules to process a query.
Following from the above example of a scenario where a code module
and at least one data module would have been needed to be executed to
resolve a viewer’s input (e.g., ordering an advertised product), we determine
that Szymanski teaches a contents module (e.g., directory module) that
includes information indicating that the data module and the code module
are required to resolve the query. Notably, Szymanski teaches the directory
module “identifies all of the modules which are part of the application”
(Szymanski 1:63—64) and “enough information to allow the interactive
television receiver to access all of the parts (i.e., modules) of the application
which may be necessary for execution of the program” {id. at 6:58—61). As
such in the scenario discussed above where a viewer provides viewer input
(e.g., a query), Szymanski’s directory module (e.g., a contents module)
includes information both to indicate the data modules required to resolve
the query (e.g., data related to the advertised product) and information
8
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
indicating the code module required to resolve the query (e.g., code used to
allow the viewer to order the product).
For the above reasons, Szymanski suggests the recited “contents
module that includes information indicating that the one or more data
modules are required to resolve the query and information indicating that the
code module is required to resolve the query” in claim 1.
II.
“[R]eceiving... a download request that provides an indication
that the code module is required to resolve the query at a second device ”
We begin by construing the above, disputed limitation of claim 1,
namely “a download request that provides an indication that the code
module is required to resolve the query at a second device.” Appellants cite
to Paragraphs 38, 51, and 52 and Figure 2 of the Specification for support.
App. Br. 4. However, although the Specification states “the set top box
downloads the necessary data modules and code modules (requested
modules 122) from the broadcast carousel” (Spec. 138), the disclosure
provides little insight into how the download request indicates “the code
module is required to resolve the query” as recited. That is, Paragraph 51
states the table of contents module indicates the data tables and code
modules necessary to execute a query and “information is downloaded” {id.
151) but states nothing about what the download request may include. See
id. Paragraph 52 and Figure 2 provide no further explanation of what the
download request provides as an indication or what the download request
contains. Id. 1 52, Fig. 2.
We thus construe the phrase “a download request that provides an
indication that the code module is required to resolve the query at a second
9
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
device” as broadly, but reasonably in light of the disclosure to include a
download request that indicates or reflects the needed code module in one of
various ways, including a request that indicates the needed or missing code
module that resolves a query.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner cites to columns 1 and 4 of
Szymanski to teach this disputed limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Szymanski
1:18—56, 4:7—32). The Examiner further cites to column 7 when addressing
claim 32, which further recites the download request and is dependent on
claim 1. Final Act. 12 (citing Szymanski 7:10—20). Moreover, Appellants
address this passage when discussing this limitation. App. Br. 13 (citing
Szymanski 7:12—18).
Appellants contend that the cited passages do not teach or suggest ‘“a
download request that provides an indication that the code module is
required to resolve the query at a second device,’ as recited in claim 1.”
App. Br. 12—13. Appellants acknowledge that Szymanski teaches some data
and code may be downloaded after execution of an application but that
“timing constraints” on the downloading do not teach the “receiving” and
“transmitting” steps as recited. Id. at 13. We are not persuaded.
Szymanski teaches the application includes modules that needed to be
downloaded but that “[ojther modules containing data or additional code
may not be needed immediately, so they may be downloaded after execution
of the application begins.” Szymanski 7:12—14. Thus, following from our
above example, the modules that contain the interactive television program
which initially prompt the viewer may be provided to a second device (e.g.,
a television receiver) but other modules containing other data and code to
respond to a viewer’s input may be downloaded as necessary “to be sure [the
10
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
module] is received when needed.” Id. at 7:19—20. Furthermore, in this
example, one skilled in the art would have recognized or inferred such a
download request suggested by Szymanski (e.g., other modules containing
data or code needed for operation to allow the viewer to order an advertised
product) would include some indication or hint of code and data modules
needed or missing to allow the viewer to perform the requested operation
(e.g., allow the viewer to order an advertised product). See id. at 1:23—29,
52—55, 7:10—20. That is, without some type of indication related to the
needed modules in such a download request, the download request in
Szymanski would not be able to obtain the necessary modules. See id.
We therefore determine that, based on the above teachings and
suggestions, one skilled in the art would have recognized that Szymanski’s
download requests (e.g., a download request that follows the initial
download providing interactive television programming) would provide an
indication that the code module is needed or necessary to resolve a query
(e.g., allow viewer to order an advertised product).
As such, Szymanski suggests the step of “receiving, after transmitting
the contents module, a download request that provides an indication that the
code module is required to resolve the query at a second device” as recited
in claim 1.
III. “[T]ransmitting the code module responsive to the download request”
Lastly, concerning the above “transmitting” step, Appellants’
argument are the same as those concerning the “receiving” step. App. Br.
12—13. We are not persuaded for the reasons stated. That is, as explained
above, after the contents module is initially transmitted to the receiver,
Szymanski suggests that further download requests may follow and that such
11
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
request can include ones that provide an indication that the code module is
required to resolve the query (e.g., a viewer’s input request) at a second
device. See Szymanski 6:57—63, 7:10-20. Such request are then transmitted
back to second device. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 6 not
separately argued.
Claims 32 and 33
Claim 32 depends from claim 1 and further recites “the download
request further provides an indication that the one or more data modules are
required to resolve the query at the second device, and the method further
comprises: transmitting the one or more data modules responsive to the
download request.” App. Br. 29 (Claims App’x). The Examiner relies on
Szymanski to teach this feature. Final Act. 12 (citing Szymanski 4:56—67,
7:10—20, 59—67). Appellants contend that “nothing can be found relating to
features reciting” the above-quoted features. App. Br. 21—22 (citing
Szymanski 4:56—67, 7:10—20, 59—67).
For the reasons discussed above when addressing the disputed
features of claim 1, this argument is unavailing. We refer above for details.
But, to elaborate, similar to the above discussion that the disclosure does not
describe how such a download request indicates a code module is required to
resolve the query, the Specification does not disclose how a download
request indicates a data module is required to resolve the query as recited.
See generally Spec. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of
the recited “download request” in claim 32 in light of the disclosure includes
a download request that indicates or reflects the needed data module in one
12
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
of various forms, including a request that indicates the needed or missing
data module that resolves a query.
Also similar to the above discussion of how Szymanski teaches code
modules can be downloaded after initial execution so that modules are
available when needed (Szymanski 7:10-20), Szymanski similarly teaches
data (e.g., data modules) can be downloaded later so that it is available when
needed (see id.). And without providing some type of indication related to
the needed data in such a download request, the download request in
Szymanski would not be able to obtain the necessary data. See id. As such,
one skilled in the art would have recognized such a download request
suggested by Szymanski (e.g., other modules containing data needed for
operation to allow the viewer to order an advertised product) would include
some indication or hint that the data module(s) is/are needed or missing to
allow the viewer to perform the requested operation (e.g., allow the viewer
to order an advertised product). See id. at 1:23—29, 52—55, 7:10-20.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 32
and dependent claim 33 not separately argued.
Claims 9, 11, and 14
Independent claim 9 is broader in scope than claim 1, reciting only the
“packaging” and “transmitting the plurality of modules” steps. App. Br. 25
(Claims App’x). Appellants present similar arguments to those concerning
claim 1. App. Br. 14 (stating “claim 9 is deficient for similar reasons as
stated above with respect to claim 1”). We are not persuaded for the reasons
discussed above when addressing claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants have
not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 9 and
dependent claims 11 and 14 not separately argued.
13
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the “packaging at least the portion of the database
comprises: subdividing data from the at least a portion of the database into
data tables comprising the record sets; and splitting the data tables into the
one or more data modules.” App. Br. 25 (Claims App’x). The Examiner
finds that Szymanski teaches these limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing
Szymanski 4:56-67, 7:10—20, 59-67, Figs. 1 and 3). Appellants assert that
these portions of Szymanski teach (1) a system may have a particular
program source, (2) the modules may be downloaded, and (3) the modules
may be multiplexed. App. Br. 15. However, Appellants contend that none
of the cited passages teach subdividing data into data tables as recited and
splitting the data tables into the data modules as recited. Id.
We agree with Appellants that the cited passages do not provide
sufficient evidence to substantiate that Szymanski teaches data tables as
recited. See Szymanski 4:56—67, 7:10-20, 59-67. Szymanski’s Figure 1
and 3 also do not show data tables. Id., Figs. 1 and 3
In the Response to Arguments section, the Examiner does not respond
directly to the arguments for claim 10. Ans. 5 (stating “[dependent claim
10, Appellants] argue[] that Szymanski alone or in combination with Crinon
fails to describe” and then proceeds to discuss claim 22) (bolding omitted).
But, the Examiner addresses a similar limitation found in dependent claim
24. See Ans. 6. Here, the Examiner states that “data stored in the database
is stored in tables and then the table further comprises of [sic] record sets.”
Id. Appellants counter, contending that “[c]laim 24 recites additional and
different features from simply the format in which the database is stored.”
Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellants.
14
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
That is, claim 10 recites “subdividing data from the at least a portion
of the database into data tables comprising the record set.” App. Br. 25
(Claims App’x). As such, claim 10 requires the subdivided data that forms
the data tables is from a portion of the database. A teaching that it is known
to store data in a database in a table format does not read on “subdividing
data from the at least a portion of the database into data tables” as recited in
claim 10.
The Examiner further cites to Crinon, stating “figure 6 of Crinon
teaches instances and intervals of the modules selected from the slots.”
Ans. 6. Crinon teaches assigning a module instance to a slot, but we do not
understand how this teaches dividing data from a database into data tables as
recited. See Crinon, Fig. 6 (step 66). The Examiner also states “Szymanski
discloses in figure 4 breakdown [sic] of file storage or packetization of
data.” Ans. 6. Figure 4 of Szymanski discloses data module 51’s
components that include data segments 52 containing transmission units
(e.g., 54) and data (e.g., 56a, 56b, 56c) but there is no discussion that the
data segments contain data tables. See Szymanski 7:21—58, Fig. 4.
Fastly, when discussing claim 1, the Examiner discusses Szymanski
teaches data modules include data segment 52 that can contain any type of
data, such as application code or raw data. Ans. 3 (quoting from Szymanski
7:21—25). This passage suggests that the modules contain raw data and code
as well as “any type of data,” but the Examiner fails to demonstrate in the
record how this passage may suggest to one skilled in the art dividing the
data from the database into data tables and placing the tables into data
modules. Nor will we make such a determination in the first instance on
appeal.
15
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
Based on the record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10.
Claims 31 and 35
Claim 31 depends from claim 9 and further recites “the record sets are
specified in a programming language in which the database is originally
formatted and the one or more data modules includes defined relationships
between data tables that organize the record sets according to record type.”
App. Br. 29 (Claims App’x). The Examiner determines Szymanski teaches
this limitation. Final Act. 12 (citing Szymanski 1:18—56, 4:7—32, Figs. 1, 3).
Appellants argue that “nothing can be found relating to features” recited in
the claim. App. Br. 20.
Szymanski teaches interactive television systems include an
interactive portion having application code, control information, audio-video
portion, and interactive graphics and audio that may prompt a viewer for
input. Szymanski 1:18—56. Nothing in this passage discusses the
programming language of the record set or the data table relationship
included in the recited data module(s). See id. Similarly, Szymanski teaches
what the interactive content may comprise (e.g., sub-components or
modules) and what the modules may comprise, but does not discuss how the
data is specified or a data table relationship included in the recited data
module(s). Id. at 4:7—32. Figure 1 and 3 do not provide further guidance.
See id. at Figs. 1,3.
In the Response to Argument section, the Examiner further cites to
column 4, lines 26 through 33 of Szymanski. Ans. 9. Yet, this passage
merely discusses that the modules can contain application code, raw data, or
graphical information. Szymanski 4:26—33. The passage does not discuss
16
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
the record sets’ programming language or that the data modules include
relationships between data tables that organize the record sets as recited. See
id.
Based on the record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 31 and dependent claim 35 for similar reasons.
Claim 34
Claim 34 depends from claim 9 and further recites “receiving a
download request that provides an indication that the code module is
required to resolve the query at the second device . . . and wherein
transmitting the plurality of modules to the second device includes
transmitting the optimized code module in response to the download
request.” App. Br. 30 (Claims App’x). The Examiner determines
Szymanski teaches this limitation. Final Act. 13 (citing Szymanski 4:56—67,
7:10-20, 59-67, Figs. 1, 3). Appellants contend “nothing can be found
relating to the above-mentioned features.” App. Br. 22.
Although we disagree that Szymanski does not teach the above
“receiving” step as previously discussed, we agree that the cited passages of
Szymanski does not teach transmitting “the optimized code module in
response to the download request” as recited. That is, claim 34 recites
“performing at least one optimization on the plurality of data modules to
produce an optimized code module” and transmitting “the optimized code
module in response to the download request.” Column 4 discusses and
Figure 1 shows data derived from sources 11 and compressed into units 12
to conserve bandwidth. Szymanski 4:56—67. But, the Examiner has failed
to explain on the record adequately that this compression technique would
perform “at least one optimization on the plurality of data modules” such
17
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
that the process “produce[s] an optimized code module” and transmits the
“optimized code module in response to the download request” as recited.
See id.
Column 7 discusses downloading modules, which may include code
modules, upon a request but does not discuss optimizing such a code module
to produce an optimized code module. See Szymanski 7:10-20. Szymanski
also discusses transmitting a data module as transmission unit that is time
multiplexed with other information. See id. at 7:59—67. However, the
Examiner has not explained sufficiently how this technique would perform
“at least one optimization on the plurality of data modules” such that the
process “produce[s] an optimized code module” and transmits the
“optimized code module in response to the download request” as recited.
See id.
In fact, the Response to Argument section, the Examiner abandons the
above citations and now cites to columns 1 and 2 and Figure 4. See Ans.
11—12 (citing Szymanski 1:58—2:8, Fig. 4). These passages, as previously
stated, address the specific content of the data modules as recited. However,
the Examiner fails to explain how these new passages discuss performing an
optimization on data modules to produce an optimized code module and
transmitting the optimized code in response to the download request as
recited. See Szymanski 1:58—2:8, Fig. 4.
Based on the record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 34.
Claims 22 and 25—2 7
Independent claim 22 recites similar limitations to claim 1, including:
18
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
a second device that comprises a first memory storing
first software instructions configured to, when executed by the
second device, cause the second device to:
generate one or more data modules that include record
sets from a database,
generate a code module that includes executable
instructions configured to be executed to resolve a query that
retrieves information from the record sets, and
generate a contents module that includes information
indicating that the one or more data modules are required to
resolve the query and information indicating that the code
module is required to resolve the query[.]
App. Br. 26 (Claims App’x).
For this claim, Appellants state “the rejection of claim 22 is deficient
for similar reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.” Id. at 16.
Appellants also argue that that the Examiner “applies similar reasoning as
the rejection of claim 1” related to the claimed “receive a download request.
. . and transmit the code module responsive to the download request”
limitations, asserting “the rejection of claim 22 is deficient for substantially
the same reasons as stated above with respect to the ‘receiving .. . [of] a
download request’ and the ‘transmitting [of] the code module responsive to
the download request,’ as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 16 (brackets in original).
We are not persuaded for the above-stated reasons when addressing
the “download request” limitation and “transmitting the code module” step
in claim 1. We refer above for details.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 22 and claims 25—27 not separately
argued.
19
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 22 and recites “the first software
instructions are configured to, when executed by the second device, cause
the second device to subdivide data from the database into tables and split
the tables into the one or more data modules.” App. Br. 27 (Claims App’x).
This limitation is similar to claim 10, and Appellants present the same
argument. Compare id. at 17—18, with id. at 15. The Examiner also relies
on the same passage to teach the limitations of claim 10 and 22. Compare
Final Act. 7, with id. at 9 (citing Szymanski 4:56—67, 7:10-20, 59—67, Figs.
1, 3). Notably, the Examiner cites additional portions of Szymanski and
Crinon in the Response to Arguments section and further states that “data
stored in the database is stored in tables and then the table further comprises
of record sets.” Ans. 6 (citing Szymanski, Fig. 4 and Crinon, Fig. 6). We
are persuaded of error for the same reasons discussed above when
addressing claim 10.
Claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 22 and recites “the record sets are
specified in a programming language in which the database is originally
formatted and the one or more data modules includes defined relationships
between data tables that organize the record sets according to record type.”
App. Br. 28 (Claims App’x). This limitation is similar to claim 31, and
Appellants present similar arguments. Compare id. at 18—19, with id. at 20—
21. But, the Examiner cites to different passages in Szymanski. That is, the
Examiner relies on the different passages in Szymanski to teach the
limitations of claim 28 and 31. Compare Final Act. 11 (citing Szymanski
20
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
4:56—67, 7:10—20, 59-67, Figs. 1, 3), with id. at 12 (citing Szymanski
1:18—56, 4:7—32, Figs. 1, 3); see also Ans. 7 (citing Szymanski 4:26—33).
Even so, we are persuaded of error. The newly cited passages of
Szymanski do not discuss the record sets’ programming language or that the
data modules include relationships between data tables that organize the
record sets as recited. Above, we address column 4, lines 7 through 32 when
discussing claim 31. Moreover, column 1 of Szymanski does not discuss a
programming language for record sets or data modules having a relationship
between data tables as recited. Szymanski 1:18—56. As such, the record has
not established adequate evidence that such a specified programming
language and data module as recited are known in the art.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 28.
Claims 29 and 30
Lastly, claim 29 recites “the download request further provides an
indication that the one or more data modules are required to resolve the
query at the first device, wherein the second device is further configured to
transmit the one or more data modules responsive to the download request.”
App. Br. 28 (Claims App’x). Appellants present arguments similar to claims
1 and 22. Compare id. at 19-20, with id. at 12—13, 16—17. The Examiner
relies on similar passages to that for claims 1 and 22. See Final Act. 11
(citing Szymanski 1:18—56, 4:7—32, Figs. 1, 3); see also Ans. 8 (citing
Szymanski 1:58—2:8, 6:50-67, 7:10—20, Fig. 4). The arguments are
unavailing, and we refer above for details.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 29 and dependent claim 30 not separately argued.
21
Appeal 2015-006246
Application 10/306,752
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 22,
25—27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 under § 103.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 24, 28, 31, 34, and
35 under § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART
22