Ex Parte Ishizaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

12787500 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
12/787,500 05/26/2010 Kazuaki Ishizaki JP920080314US1 4722
29154 7590 01/31/2017
FREDERICK W. GIBB, III
GIBB & RILEY, LLC
844 West Street
SUITE 200
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401
EXAMINER
BOURZIK, BRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
support @ gibbiplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUAKIISHIZAKI,
KIYOKUNI KAWACHIYA, and KAZUNORI OGATA
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, JOHN R. KENNY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a] method, computer system and
computer program for optimizing the processing of a character string during
execution of the program by using characteristic information that indicates a
characteristic of the character string and is associated with the character
string.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A method of optimizing processing of a character string
during execution of a program, the method comprising:
performing, by a computer system, a first operation for a first
character string in the program so as to obtain a second character
string comprising multiple characters;
determining, by the computer system based on a characteristic
of the first character string and on the first operation for the first
character string, characteristic information for the second
character string, the determining of the characteristic information
for the second character string comprising:
executing a sequential processing of the first character
string in the first operation; and
checking characters to be sequentially processed
simultaneously with the sequential processing thereby
determining the characteristic information of the second
character string;
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
associating, by the computer system, the characteristic
information with the second character string;
storing, by the computer system, the characteristic
information, which is associated with the second character string,
in memory such that the characteristic information, as stored, is
expressed as a bit string comprising multiple bits with each bit in
the bit string corresponding to a different information piece that
characterizes the second character string as a whole and not
individual characters within the second character string; and
performing, by the computer system, a second operation for
the second character string in the program, the performing of the
second operation being in accordance with the character
information associated with the second character string, thereby
optimizing the performing of the second operation.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee et al.
Arnold et al.
Koseki et al.
Rabetge et al
US 2001/0054031 Al
US 6,523,168 B1
US 2005/0231397 Al
US 2008/0288549 Al
Dec. 20, 2001
Feb. 18, 2003
Oct. 20, 2005
Nov. 20, 2008
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Koseki, Arnold, and Rabetge. (See Final Act.
10-21.)
2. Claims 2, 4, 6—12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Koseki, Arnold, Rabetge, and Lee. (See Final
Act. 21-34.)
3
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
ANALYSIS
The Specification provides an example of how the claimed system
may be used to optimize the processing of character strings during operation
of a program:
In a case where the characteristic information indicates [that the
string has no upper case characters, or no lower case characters],
the processing to convert a character string into a lower case
character or processing to convert a character string into an upper
case character may be omitted during execution of
String.tolowerCase() method or String.toUpperCase() method.
(Spec. 20.) In other words, for a string like “OPEN,” the first operation may
determine that the string has, for example, no lowercase characters, that
“characteristic” of not having any lowercase letters may be stored, and a
programmatic step that calls for a conversion of all lowercase letters to all
uppercase characters may be skipped for that particular string based on the
characteristic.
Claims 1—17,19, and 20
The Examiner finds that Koseki teaches all of the limitations of claim
1, except for those regarding storage of the characteristic information as a bit
string, for which Rabetge is cited, and those regarding the second operation,
for which Arnold is cited. (See Final Act. 10—17.) Koseki describes a
compiler “for optimization of conversion of a character coding system for a
character stored in a string variable” and, in particular, “for optimization of a
conversion instruction for conversion from UTF8, which is a character
coding system for characters in XML documents, to UTF16, which is a
character coding system used in a case where a string of characters is
manipulated by” a Java program. (Koseki 123.) Rabetge teaches the use of
a bit string to represent whether each character in a string is upper case or
4
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
lower case. (Rabetge 111.) Arnold teaches that Java includes a string
concatenation operation. (Arnold 2:30—37.)
Appellants argue that “while Rabetge does disclose the use of a bit
string to store information, the bits in the Rabetge bit string do not represent
the same information as the bits in the claimed bit string and, particularly, do
not characterize all characters in a character string.” (App. Br. 17.) We
agree. Rabetge describes how “[i]n web service development environments,
pathnames must be created which are case-insensitive and which do not
allow for special characters” such that “pathnames need to be created in the
development environment to ensure that different web services can be
uniquely identified.” (Rabetge 12.) Rabetge’s solution for a given
identifier (e.g., a pathname) is to generate a bit string that “identifies whether
each letter in the [identifier] is upper case or lower case.” {Id. 13.) Then,
“upper case letters in the [identifier] are converted to lower case” and “[t]he
converted [identifier] is concatenated with the bit string to generate a case-
insensitive [identifier].” {Id.) In other words, the string is converted to all
lowercase, but the bit string retains a record of which individual characters
had been upper case before the conversion. Thus, Rabetge’s bit string
identifies a case for each individual character, and does not “characterize[]
the [] character string as a whole and not individual characters within the []
character string,” as claimed. The Examiner’s interpretation of the claim as
covering a string that characterizes individual characters (Ans. 38) cannot be
squared with this claim language.
Because we conclude the combination does not teach or suggest all of
the limitations of claim 1, we decline to sustain (a) the Section 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, (b) the Section 103(a) rejections of independent claims
5
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
18 and 20, which include the same limitation regarding the bit string, and (c)
the Section 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2—17, all of which also
include that limitation. We do not reach Appellants’ other arguments
regarding these claims.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites that the “bit string compris[es] multiple bits with
each bit in the bit string corresponding to a different information piece that
characterizes the second character string,” but omits “and not individual
characters within the second character string” as in the other independent
claims. Claim 19 does, however, include a similar limitation in the
“determining” portion of the claim: “the characteristic information
comprising at least one information piece about the second character string
as a whole and not individual characters within the second character
string.” Because Koseki also employs a character-by-character approach,2
we agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 34), for essentially the same reasons
as described above regarding the bit string limitation of the other claims, that
Koseki does not teach or suggest this limitation. We, therefore, do not
sustain the rejection of claim 19. We do not reach Appellants’ other prior art
arguments regarding these claims.
As the Examiner observes (Ans. 79), the objection to claim 19 is not
appealable and should be addressed either with the Examiner or by petition
should prosecution continue.
2 See, e.g., Koseki || 23—25, 34—35 (“[T]he constructor generates coding
system information 210 indicating that a character in the string variable is
UTF8 or UTF16.”).
6
Appeal 2015-003825
Application 12/787,500
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
7