Ex Parte Falk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 2013

11125532 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/125,532 05/10/2005 Alexander Falk 109893.00003 2417 7590 07/12/2013 Kenneth F. Kozik 43 Mohawk Drive Acton, MA 01720-2343 EXAMINER STEVENS, ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/12/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and VLADISLAV GAVRIELOV ____________ Appeal 2010-012317 Application 11/125,5321 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Altova GMBH. Appeal 2010-012317 Application 11/125,532 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-16, which are all the claims remaining in the application. Claim 9 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally “to techniques for describing text file formats in a flexible, reusable way to facilitate transformation of the data contained in such text files from/to other data formats.” See Spec., 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of data integration, comprising: describing a text file format residing in a memory of a data processing system in an alternative structured representation, wherein the alternative structure representation conforms to a given schema that defines what data is contained in the text file, how the text file is structured, and how data contained in the text file can be transformed into at least one other file format; and using the alternative structured representation in a given data integration function to generate at least one other file format in the memory of the data processing system. Appellants appeal the following rejections2: 2 The Examiner objected to the Specification (Final 6). However, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 13), the propriety of the Examiner’s objections relate to petitionable matters and not to appealable matters. Objections to the Specification and to the claims are petitionable matters under 37 C.F.R. § 181 to the Director of the USPTO. See MPEP 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which Appeal 2010-012317 Application 11/125,532 3 R1. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeannette (US Patent Pub. 2003/0121001 A1, published June 26, 2003) and Deitel (XML: How to Program, Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 7-11 and 166-167, 2001); R2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeannette, Deitel, and Eck (US Patent Pub. 2002/0129059 A1, published Sept. 12, 2002); and R3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeannette, Deitel, and Mullins (US Patent Pub. 2007/0088757 A1, published Apr. 19, 2007). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Claims 1-8 and 10-16 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jeannette and Deitel teaches and/or suggests a schema that defines how the text is structured and how data contained in the text file can be transformed, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend that: However, in this instance, both individual references cited by the examiner fail to teach, suggest or imply describing a text file format are not properly before the Board.”). Accordingly, we will not address Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 16-18) regarding the Examiner’s objection. Appeal 2010-012317 Application 11/125,532 4 residing in a memory of a data processing system in an alternative structure representation, wherein the alternative structure representation conforms to a given schema that defines what data is contained in the text file, how the text file is structured, and how data contained in the text file can be transformed into at least one other file format. (App. Br. 24.) The Examiner found that “[t]he claim limitation in question was cited as being taught by the Jeannette reference. The Deitel reference was cited for its teaching that the use of schemas was (to one skilled in the art) a well known alternative to the use of DTDs at the time of Appellant’s subject matter” (Ans. 15). We agree with the Examiner. Specifically, Jeannette discloses a method for automatically transforming data between one format to another format (see Abstract). In Jeannette, a Data Type Definition (DTD) defines both the building block of an XML document and the structure with a list of elements (see ¶ [0040]), and the system allows automatic translation of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) data to or from a self-describing markup language format, such as XML (see ¶ [0042] and Fig. 2). In other words, Jeannette discloses an alternative structure representation that defines the building blocks and structure of the document and allows translation to or from one format to another, i.e., XML and EDI. The recited alternative structure representation that defines how the text file is structured and how data can be transformed into at least one other file format is strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Jeannette’s teachings, and the Examiner’s reliance on this functionality is therefore persuasive. Appeal 2010-012317 Application 11/125,532 5 Similarly, Deitel discloses “an alternative to DTDs – called schemas … Schemas are expected to replace DTDs as the primary means of describing document structure” (pg. 166, section 7.1). In other words, Deitel illustrates that DTDs and schemas are alternatives for describing document structures. The Examiner based the rejection on the collective teachings of the prior art and what it would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. We find that Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted, emphasis added). This reasoning is applicable here, as we find that the combined teachings suggest a given schema can define how the text file is structured and how data contained in the text file can be transformed. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the combined disclosures of Jeannette and Deitel, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2- 8 and 10-16 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Appeal 2010-012317 Application 11/125,532 6 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk