Ex Parte Guedalia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713043532 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Br. 2.) 2 Claims 6 and 14 were canceled, and claims 17—20 were withdrawn. 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 9, 2011 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation