Ex Parte Chowdhury

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2014

11946532 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SANDEEP CHOWDHURY
____________

Appeal 2011-013190
Application 11/946,532
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1–11 and 18–20.
We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention is directed to data types, and in particular to a
composite tree data type representing tree based documents and objects.
Spec. 1:4–5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method of representing tree-structure based data,
the method comprising the steps of:
uncomposing tree-structure based data into a plurality of
elements in memory by at least one processor of a computer,
the plurality of elements being of different types;
Appeal 2011-013190
Application 11/946,532

2

storing the elements uncomposed from the tree-structure
based data in a set, the set containing one or more elements of
each element type; and
storing one or more logical compositions with the set of
elements uncomposed from the tree-structure based data, each
logical composition specifying at least one element of each
element type,
wherein each logical composition is reducible to a
combination of specific elements of each element type
representing a specific instance of tree-structure based data.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Takahashi (US 6,535,875 B2, iss. Mar. 18, 2003).
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Takahashi
discloses “storing the elements uncomposed from the tree-structure based
data in a set,” as recited in independent claim 1. Br. 4–9. Essentially,
Appellant asserts that the recited “set” cannot be in a tree-structure form.
We disagree. While independent claim 1 does disclose that elements must
be uncomposed from tree-structure based data, independent claim 1 does not
preclude reorganizing those elements into a different tree-structure that
corresponds to the recited “set.” To that end, Takahashi meets the
aforementioned claim limitation. Specifically, Takahashi discloses
processing text to be catalogued by defining a set of logical elements
composing the text. Col. 11, ll. 8–17. Examples are shown in Figures 4 and
8, reproduced below.
App
App

Fig
Thes
exam
eal 2011-0
lication 11
ure 4 is a d
Figur
e element
ple, as sh
13190
/946,532
iagram sh
format d
e 8 is a dia
s are then m
own in Fig
owing an
efining a l
gram show
erged wi
ures 12 an
3
example o
ogical stru
ing a dat
table.
th other si
d 34, repr
f a Docum
cture of a
a structure
milar elem
oduced be

ent Type
text.

of a text-s
ents into “
low.
Definition
tructure
sets,” for

App
App

Figu
seq
eal 2011-0
lication 11
re 12 is a d
uentially s
13190
/946,532
iagram sh
uperposing
owing a p
a pluralit
one a
4
rocess for
y of piece
fter anothe
developin
s of alread
r.

g a structu
y-analyzed
re index b
-text data
y

App
App

F
stru
In pa
elem
AFF

mls

eal 2011-0
lication 11
igure 34 is
cture inde
rticular, c
ents from
We susta
The deci
IRMED.
13190
/946,532
a diagram
x by seque
analy
hapter E3
different t
in the reje
sion of the
showing
ntially sup
zed-text d
in Figure 1
exts.
ction of c
DE
Examine
AF
5
a process
erposing a
ata one af
2 and cha
laims 1–11

CISION
r to reject
FIRMED
to develop
plurality
ter another
pter E2 in
and 18–2
claims 1–1
a reverse
of pieces o
.
Figure 34
0.
1 and 18–
d-order-
f already-
aggregate
20 is