Ex Parte Lyle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 7, 2013

10870924 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT WILLIAM LYLE and EDISON LAO TING ___________ Appeal 2010-011191 Application 10/870,924 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC B. CHEN, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 12-24. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to methods for managing and storing logically grouped hierarchical data using logical and physical links. See generally Abstract. Appeal 2010-011191 Application 10/870,924 2 Claim 12 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 12. A computer implemented method for storing a group of nodes representative of hierarchical data, wherein each node of said group of nodes is assigned a Node ID based on an extensible decimal system, said method comprising: (a) grouping sets of nodes of said group of nodes in Node ID order to form a plurality of ranges of Node IDs, wherein each of said ranges are written to at least one block of memory and writing either a highest Node ID or a lower Node ID associated with each range in said plurality of ranges to a Node ID Range Index; (b) maintaining one or more physical links between nodes within a range in said plurality of ranges; (c) maintaining an index of entries in said Node ID Range Index, said index entries defining one or more logical links between nodes of said group of nodes in different ranges within said plurality of ranges; and (d) traversing within ranges in said plurality of ranges are via said physical links and traversing between ranges based on an index lookup of Node IDs, and outputting results of said traversal. Claims 12-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fiebig (Thorsten Fiebig et al., Natix: A Technology Overview, WEB DATABASES & WEB SERVS. 12-33 (2003)), O’Neil (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0110150 A1; June 12, 2003), and Hayashi (U.S. Patent No. 5,568,638; Oct. 22, 1996). Ans. 3-12. ANALYSIS We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5-11; see also Reply Br. 2-5) that the combination of Fiebig, Hayashi, and O’Neil would not have rendered obvious independent claim 12, which includes the limitation “writing either a highest Node ID or a lower Node ID associated Appeal 2010-011191 Application 10/870,924 3 with each range in said plurality of ranges to a Node ID Range Index” (hereinafter the “Index Writing Limitation”). In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner finds that Fiebig teaches the recited steps but fails to show the Index Writing Limitation. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that Hayashi provides such a teaching. Id. (citing col. 3, ll. 52-63; Figs. 1, 2). We agree with the Examiner. Hayashi illustrates an index portion 14 and a data portion 15 in Figures 1 and 2. Hayashi describes the data portion as storing records (Figures 1 and 2 show the records grouped in pages P4-P7) and describes the records as stored sequentially according to key values while the index portion holds the “maximum key value of each page of the data portion 15.” Col. 3, ll. 54-60. Hayashi further describes that it is possible to retrieve the “range of the key value” as equivalent to “from one key value until another relevant key value.” Col. 3, ll. 62-63. Appellants argue that Hayashi fail to teach the Index Writing Limitation. App. Br. 7-10. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Hayashi’s index portion merely holds the maximum key value of a page and make[s] no mention of range or ranges of NodeIDs.” App. Br. 7. We are unpersuaded. The Examiner explains that Hayashi shows pages (e.g., data portion 15 comprising pages P4-P7 of Fig. 1) that each store a range of records having corresponding values (key values) and shows pages (e.g., index portion 14 comprising pages P1-P3 of Fig. 1) that each store a highest value for a range of values in a data portion page. Ans. 12-13. Thus, Hayashi shows a Node ID Range Index (index portion 14) in which a highest Node ID is written (maximum key value of a page) as recited in claim 12. We thus agree with the Examiner that Hayashi teaches the Index Writing Limitation. Appeal 2010-011191 Application 10/870,924 4 Appellants further argue that the key values of Hayashi cannot be equated with the recited Node IDs that are assigned to each node in a group of nodes. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-4. We are unpersuaded. The Examiner explains that each key value of Hayashi is an identifier recorded within each record of a node. Ans. 13. In other words, Figure 2 of Hayashi illustrates that each record of a page of the data portion of Hayashi has a single key value associated therewith in the same manner that each node of claim 12 has an associated Node ID. Multiple such records of Hayashi are grouped into pages. We further note that O’Neil is relied upon by the Examiner to show that such a value may be “based on an extensible decimal system.” Ans. 4. We therefore agree with the Examiner that the combination of Fiebig, O’Neil, and Hayashi teaches Node IDs based on an extensible decimal system that are assigned to each node in a group of nodes, as recited in claim 12. We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 4) that the combination of Fiebig, Hayashi, and O’Neil would not have rendered obvious independent claim 12, which includes the limitation “index entries defining one or more logical links between nodes of said group of nodes in different ranges within said plurality of ranges” (hereinafter the “Logical Link Limitation”). In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner further finds that Fiebig teaches the Logical Link Limitation as the proxy nodes of Fiebig showing the recited index the entries of which define logical links. Ans. 5 (citing Fig. 3; pp. 17- 18, 27). The Examiner explains that Fiebig’s structure of Figure 3 shows proxy nodes p1 and p2 each pointing to different records of facade nodes (e.g., linking different groups of nodes as recited in claim 12). Ans. 14. We Appeal 2010-011191 Application 10/870,924 5 agree. In other words, Figure 3 of Fiebig illustrates proxy nodes serving the recited function of the index entries to logically link nodes of different groups. Thus, we agree with the Examiner hat Fiebig teaches the Logical Link Limitation. In view of the above discussion we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 and claims 13-24 not separately argued with particularity. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4-5. Accordingly we sustain the rejection of all claims (12-24) as unpatentable over Fiebig, Hayashi, and O’Neil. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12-24 is affirmed. 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 babc