Ex Parte Guedalia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13043532 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
13/043,532 03/09/2011 Jacob Guedalia 1931-US 9041
24505 7590
Daniel J. Swirsky
11 Reuven Street
Beit Shemesh, 9954419
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
MILLER, VIVA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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 JACOB GUEDALIA, GAVRIEL RAANAN, LAWRENCE
REISLER, and ISAAC DAVID GUEDALIA
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—13, 15, and 16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.3
1 Appellants identify Happy Cloud, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
2 Claims 6 and 14 were canceled, and claims 17—20 were withdrawn.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 9, 2011 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 16, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 3,
2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 4, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to data streaming for interactive, decision-
oriented software applications. (Spec. 1:10-11.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing data to a computer software
application, the method comprising:
intercepting a request made by a computer software
application to retrieve a first data set from a first data storage
location;
determining whether there exists a first record that refers
to the first data set specified in the request, wherein the first
record is among a plurality of records that are defined in advance
of the request;
determining whether there exists an association between
the first record and a predefined rule,
wherein the association is defined in advance of the
request,
wherein the rule is among a plurality of rules that are
defined in advance of the request,
wherein the rule indicates that the first data set referred to
in the first record and a second data set referred to in a second
record are to be retrieved,
wherein the rule includes references to the first record and
the second record in advance of application of the rule, and
wherein the second record is among the plurality of
records that are defined in advance of the request;
retrieving, in accordance with the rule, the first data set
from a data storage location other than the first data storage
location; and
retrieving, in accordance with the rule, the second data set
from a data storage location other than the first data storage
location in advance of a request by the computer software
2
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
application to access the second data set at the first data storage
location,
wherein said intercepting, identifying, and retrieving steps
are implemented in any of
a) computer hardware and
b) computer software embodied in a non-transitory,
computer-readable storage medium.
REJECTION
Claims 1—5, 7—13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Janardhan et al. (US 2010/0146569 Al; pub. June 10, 2010), Parks
et al. (US 5,325,508; iss. June 28, 1994), and McCarten et al. (US 8,863,116
Bl; iss. Oct. 14, 2014). (Ans. 2-12.)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1, Appellants contend
the Examiner’s proffered combination of Janardhan, Parks, and McCarten is
improper for the following reasons:
1. Claim 1 requires “determining whether there exists an association
between the first record and a predefined rule . . . wherein the rule indicates
that the first data set referred to in the first record and a second data set
referred to in a second record are to be retrieved.” (App. Br. 6.) McCarten
does not refer to using “rules”per se to retrieve data, and the Examiner’s
interpretation of a “rule” to mean “any relationship between two files” is not
proper. (App. Br. 7.) One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
retrieving data in accordance with a “rule” means retrieving the data in
accordance with “a prescribed guide for conduct or action.” (Id.) Thus, the
3
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
mere existence of a relationship between two files in McCarten does not
accord with claim 1, as this relationship does not represent an indication that
either of the files are to be retrieved, let alone that both of the files are to be
retrieved. (Id.)
2. McCarten describes relationships between files, data blocks that
represent portions of the files, and the locations of the blocks in memory, but
no relationship described by McCarten is between one block and another
block, nor one file and another file; thus, McCarten does not teach a “first
data set referred to in [a] first record and a second data set referred to in a
second record.” (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 5—6.) Furthermore, whether
McCarten’s data blocks have a relationship or dependency to each other, by
virtue of residing in the same physical memory or being constituents of the
same file, is irrelevant and does not constitute a rule, nor does it indicate that
any data is to be retrieved. (Id.)
3. McCarten teaches checking the file system to determine if startup data
blocks are present in the cache memory, but, assuming arguendo that the
startup blocks are related to each other, this relationship does not indicate
that anything is to be retrieved. (App. Br. 8.)
4. McCarten teaches probability records that describe relationships
between data blocks that were previously accessed and data blocks that have
not yet been accessed, but, assuming arguendo that this probability record is
a “rule,” each probability relates to a single block and does not represent a
rule that “includes references to the first record and second record,” as
recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 10.) Further, McCarten’s probability record
for a single block cannot represent a rule indicating “the first data set
4
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
referred to in the first record and a second data set referred to in a second
record are to be retrieved.” (Id.)
5. McCarten provides no description regarding how, or even whether,
the streaming server software uses the probability that the application will
require a given block depending on the previous blocks that were accessed;
rather, McCarten merely specifies a previous block that was accessed (i.e.,
previously retrieved data) or a given block that the application has not yet
requested (i.e., a future data request). (Reply Br. 4.) Thus, the probability
record of McCarten does not teach the claimed “rule” that represents a
relationship between a first record that refers to a currently requested data
set and a second record that refers to a second data set, and also indicates
that both data sets are “to be retrieved” in response to determining that the
rule exists. (Reply Br. 4—5.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 6—10; Reply Br. 2—6) that the Examiner erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ above contentions 1—5. To the extent consistent
with the analysis below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 5—16) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 12—15) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
5
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
Appellants did not challenge the Examiner’s factual findings about
Janardhan or Parks, and thus we take those findings as being conceded by
Appellants.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants’ contentions 1—5 regarding McCarten are not persuasive of
Examiner error, because Appellants are essentially attacking the McCarten
reference individually where the rejection is based on the combination of
Janardhan, Parks, and McCarten. (See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”)).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Janardhan teaches the
concept of providing data to a computer software application by retrieving
data sets in accordance with a predefined mle, specifically, a rule that
retrieves data for video that is currently selected and watched by a viewer
(i.e., a first data set) and also retrieves data that is pre-fetched in advance of
a request by the computer to access that data, such as the beginning of each
video chapter (i.e., a second data set). (Ans. 2—5 (citing Janardhan || 50 and
58).) We further agree that the combination of Janardhan and Parks teaches
intercepting a request made by a computer software application to retrieve a
first data set from a first data storage location (Ans. 5—6 (citing Parks col.
7:25—33)), retrieving the first data set from a streaming data storage location,
other than a first local data storage location (Ans. 3^4 (citing Janardhan
125)), and retrieving the second data set from a streaming data storage
location other than the first local data storage location in advance of a
6
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
request by the computer software application to access the second data set at
the first local data storage location (Ans. 4—5 (citing Janardhan H 25, 28,
and 58)).
The Examiner states that Janardhan and Parks do not explicitly teach a
first record that refers to the first data set and a second record that refers to
the second data set, and relies on McCarten to teach the concept of data
block libraries, which contain records referring to a plurality of data sets.
(Ans. 6—7, 13—15 (citing McCarten col. 10:11—13 and col. 11:4—10 and 15—
20).) The Examiner also notes that McCarten teaches a predictive data
model that determines the probability that the application will require a
given block depending on the previous blocks that were accessed, which is a
similar concept to Janardhan’s pre-fetching system. (Ans. 13—14 (citing
McCarten col. 8:7—18).)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Janardhan,
Parks, and McCarten teaches determining whether there exists an association
between the first record and a predefined rule (i.e., a library block record
containing information for a rule that fetches both video currently being
watched and video that is pre-fetched (Ans. 2—7, 13—15 (citing Janardhan
158 and McCarten col. 11:4—10, 15—20)); the rule indicates that the first
data set referred to in the first record and a second data set referred to in a
second record are to be retrieved (i.e., the rule retrieves both currently
watched video and the associated video for each chapter (id.)); and the rule
includes references to the first record and the second record in advance of
application of the rule (i.e., a known library block record containing
information for video currently being watch and video that is pre-fetched
(id.)).
7
Appeal 2016-006899
Application 13/043,532
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Janardhan, Parks, and
McCarten.
Remaining Claims
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claim 9 on the same
basis as claim 1 (see App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6), thus, we sustain the rejection
of claim 9 for the reasons stated above.
No separate arguments are presented for remaining dependent claims
2—5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, and 16. (Id.) Accordingly, for reasons stated with
respect to independent claims 1 and 9, we sustain the rejection of the
dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 7—13, 15, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8