Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 6, 2012

11861063 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte SHUDI GAO, MICHAEL RAFAEL GLAVASSEVICH, NEIL GRAHAM, GLENN ALLEN MARCY, YUHICHI NAKAMURA, TOYOTARO SUZUMURA, TOSHIRO TAKASE, and MICHIAKI TATSUBORI ________________ Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Invention The present invention relates generally to an improved data processing system and in particular to a method and apparatus for validating code. More particularly, the present invention relates to a computer implemented method, apparatus, and a computer usable program product for validating an XML (extensible markup language) document against an XML schema. (Spec. p. 1, ¶ [0001], “Field of the Invention”). Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary claims which are reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitations): 1. A method for validating a target document written in a structured language against a schema for the structured language, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of: storing document fragments that have been previously validated against the schema; comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema; and 1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action (FOA) mailed Mar. 31, 2011; the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed Aug. 25, 2011; the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Nov. 23, 2011; and the original Specification (Spec.) filed Sept. 25, 2007. Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 3 performing a validation of the target document while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding document fragments and that have been previously validated against the schema and stored. 3. A method for validating a target document written in a structured language against a schema for the structured language, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of: comparing a first part of the target document to a document fragment, wherein the document fragment is associated with a scanner context and a virtual machine context generated during a prior validation when the document fragment was previously validated against the schema, and wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema; and responsive to the first part of the target document matching the document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first part of the target document; and reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target document. Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Debique US 2004/0004631 A1 Jan. 8, 2004 Kupkova US 2004/0103124 A1 May 27, 2004 Chen US 2005/0177543 A1 Aug. 11, 2005 Zhilyaev US 2006/0004729 A1 Jan. 5, 2006 Ellison US 2006/0107257 A1 May 18, 2006 Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 4 Rejections on Appeal 2 A. The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhilyaev in view of Kupkova (Ans. 5). B. The Examiner has rejected claims 3-8 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhilyaev and Kupkova in view of Ellison (Ans. 7). C. The Examiner has rejected claims 9-12 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhilyaev, Kupkova, and Ellison in view of Chen and Debique (Ans. 13). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based upon Appellants’ arguments against the rejections and proposed claim groupings (App. Br. 14-23), and our authority under 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select the following representative claims to decide this appeal in accordance with those arguments and rejections: Claim 1: Claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1. (See App. Br. 14, 18). Claim 3: Claims 4-8, 17-20, 9-12, and 14-16 stand or fall together with claim 3 (See App. Br. 18, 22-24). We note that no substantive arguments have been presented with respect to the rejection of dependent claims 9-16, other than reliance upon 2 We note that the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in the Final Office Action were withdrawn by the Examiner and arguments related thereto are not considered in our Decision (Ans. 4). Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 5 the arguments associated with independent claim 3 from which these claims variously and ultimately depend such that they stand or fall with claim 3. We have only considered those arguments raised by Appellants in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1 and 2 Appellants’ Contentions Appellants assert their claimed invention is not obvious over the combination of Zhilyaev and Kupkova. Specifically, Appellants contend that: [T]he references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest “storing document fragments that have been previously validated against the schema; comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema” as recited by independent claim 1. App. Br. 16. Further in this regard, Appellants also contend that: Kupkova does not teach “storing document fragments that have been previously validated against the schema; comparing the target document to the document fragments Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 6 to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema” as recited by claim 1. Kupkova only discloses creating a differences document and then later applying the differences document to the correct original file, which is known as patching the original document. Kupkova can't be used to provide the recited features, because Kupkova's does not teach “comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema” as recited by claim 1. Kupkova's only validates that the document that is being patched is the correct document to be patched. App. Br. 16-17. Appellants further contend: Kupkova’s process is not the same as “comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema” as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 17. Finally, Appellants contend: [T]he references do not teach or suggest “performing a validation of the target document while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding document fragments and that have been Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 7 previously validated against the schema and stored” as recited by claim 1. Consequently, claim 1 is not obvious . . . . App. Br. 17-18. Issue 1 Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Zhilyaev with Kupkova teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the steps of “storing document fragments that have been previously validated against the schema; comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema; and performing a validation of the target document while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding document fragments and that have been previously validated against the schema and stored,” as recited by claim 1? Analysis We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 18-20) in response to Appellants’ Arguments Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 8 (App. Br. 14-18). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Zhilyaev with Kupkova teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the steps of “storing document fragments that have been previously validated against the schema; comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema; and performing a validation of the target document while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding document fragments and that have been previously validated against the schema and stored,” as recited by claim 1. (Ans. 5-7, 18-20). More specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Zhilyaev’s teaching of “document structure” (see Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0027], and [0029]-[0030]) refers to a document schema which meets the claim limitation of “schema.” Ans. 18 (citing Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0027], and [0029]- [0030]). We also agree with the Examiner that Kupkova teaches comparing the document structure from two documents, and also teaches or suggests performing comparison of document structures, including fragments and, as taught by Zhilyaev, the document fragments are stored, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 19 (citing Kupkova at ¶¶ [0005], [0026], [0028], and Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0029]-[0030]). Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 9 In light of the Examiner’s findings, supra, We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 16-17) that Kupkova merely discloses creation of a difference document, and thereby cannot teach the claimed subject matter because Kupkova does not teach “comparing the target document to the document fragments to identify portions of the target document that are schematically identical to corresponding document fragments, wherein the target document is a new document that has not been previously validated against the schema,” as recited by claim 1. Likewise, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion, without citing evidence or otherwise providing substantive arguments, that the references do not teach or suggest “performing a validation of the target document while omitting certain validation steps that pertain to the portions of the target document that are schematically identical to the corresponding document fragments and that have been previously validated against the schema and stored,” as recited by claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3-12 and 14-16 Appellants’ Contentions Appellants assert their claimed invention is not obvious over the combination of Zhilyaev with Kupkova and Ellison. Specifically, Appellants contend that: Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 10 [T]he references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest “responsive to the first part of the target document matching the document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first part of the target document; and reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target document” as recited by independent claim 3. App. Br. 21. Appellants go on to contend that Kupkova generates a hash code value which is used to validate that the document being patched is the correct document and also generates a differences document that is used to patch the first version of the file to generate the second version of the file. App. Br. 21 (citing Kupkova at ¶ [0028]). In addition, Appellants assert that: [H]ash code values used for identifying that a file being patched is the same file used to generate a patch file and patching the file using the patch file can’t be used to provide the features recited . . . [because n]either a hash code value nor a patch file would be considered by those skilled in the art as “reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target document” as recited by claim 3. App. Br. 21-22. In addition, Appellants contend that: Kupkova teaches that if the two files are exactly the same, based on them having the same hash value, then the patch can be applied and if they are not, then the patch can't be applied. The references do not teach or suggest “reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target document” as recited by claim 3. Both references would require reconstructing “the scanner context and the virtual Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 11 machine context” information for any subsequent validation because neither reference teaches “reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context” as recited by claim 3. App. Br. 22. Finally, Appellants contend that: Ellison is merely recited to show the concept of virtual machine context. However Ellison does not teach or suggest “responsive to the first part of the target document matching the document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first part of the target document; and reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target document” as recited by claim 3. Id. Issue 2 Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Zhilyaev with Kupkova and Ellison teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the steps of “responsive to the first part of the target document matching the document fragment, omitting validation steps of the first part of the target document; and reusing the scanner context and the virtual machine context to validate a corresponding portion of a subsequent part of the target document,” as recited by claim 3? Analysis We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 12 conclusions with respect to claim 3, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 7-11, 20-22) in response to Appellants’ Arguments (App. Br. 18-23). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 3 for emphasis as follows. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, particularly the Examiner’s interpretation that the recited “scanner context” can represent a computing entity, such as data or metadata to aid in validation, and that, in accord with Appellants’ Specification (Spec. ¶ [0069]), a scanner context could include a namespace. Ans. 20-21. We find this interpretation to be reasonable, and unrebutted by Appellants. We further agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ argument regarding reuse “without having to regenerate the context information,” is not claimed. (Ans. 21, citing App. Br. 21-22). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 3. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that “Zhilyaev identifies documents for accelerated validation that have a structure identical to a previously validated document.” Ans. 22 (citing Zhilyaev at ¶¶ [0029]- [0030]). We agree with the Examiner that this suggests that a document may have portions that were previously validated, as well as portions that are not yet validated so that the parts of the document that matched previously validated documents would not need full validation, as taught by Zhilyaev. Ans. 22. Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 13 Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art or in the Examiner’s claim construction. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, as well as claims 4-12 and 14-16 which fall with claim 3. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejection is sustained. (2) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 3-8 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejection is sustained. (3) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 9-12 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejection is sustained. (4) On this record, Appellants have not shown claims 1-12 and 14- 20 to be patentable. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 and 14-20 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-005824 Application 11/861,063 14 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD