Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2017

13400527 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
13/400,527 02/20/2012 Wenzhe Zhou HW 83339471US01 5697
74365 7590 11/03/2017
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
HENRY, MARIEGEORGES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2017 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENZHE ZHOU, JIM ZHAO, and JIAN LI
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—8, 16—18, and 21—28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part, and enter new grounds of rejection.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention reduces backhaul link bandwidth utilization in a
wireless communication system by, among other things, storing only
reference keys in a transmitting device’s cache and employing an
asymmetrical cache structure between communicating devices. See
generally Abstract; Spec. 53. Claim 1 is illustrative with our emphasis:
1. A method for transmitting data, comprising:
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
receiving a block of data, by a radio network controller (RNC) or
serving gateway (SGW) from a content provider;
generating, by the RNC or SGW, a reference key from the block of
data;
determining if the reference key exists in a cache storing previously
saved reference keys;
when the reference key exists in the cache, transmitting, by the RNC
or SGW, the reference key over a backhaul link; and
when the reference key does not exist in the cache, generating, by the
RNC or SGW, a new reference key corresponding to the block of data,
saving, by the RNC or SGW, the new reference key to the cache without
saving the block of data to the cache, and transmitting, by the RNC or SGW,
the new reference key and the block of data over the backhaul link.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising binding a session in the
cache from a first peer over to a second peer when a user migrates from a
first base station to a second base station.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 7, 8, 16—18, 21—25, 27, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhao (US 2012/0011271 Al;
Jan. 12, 2012) and Hashimoto (US 2012/0144097 Al; June 7, 2012). Final
Act. 2-8.1
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhao, Hashimoto, and Feder (2002/0089958 Al; July 11,
2002). Final Act. 8-9.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January
5, 2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 12, 2015 (“Br.”); and
(3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 10, 2015 (“Ans.”).
2
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ZHAO AND HASHIMOTO
The Examiner finds that Zhao discloses every recited element of claim
1 except for saving a new reference key to a cache without saving a received
data block to the cache when a reference key does not exist in the cache.
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner, however, cites Hashimoto as teaching this
element in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Hashimoto is
misplaced because Hashimoto stores all data to a storage region in lieu of a
cache region. Br. 5—7. According to Appellants, modifying Zhao in view of
Hashimoto as the Examiner proposes would result in storing both the
signature and data block in data storage instead of cache. Id. at 6.
Appellants argue various other recited limitations summarized below.
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Zhao and
Hashimoto collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) saving a new reference key to a cache without saving a received
data block to the cache when a reference key does not exist in the cache as
recited in claim 1 ?
(2) (a) aggregating blocks into hyper blocks as recited in claim 2; (b)
assigning a hyper reference key to each hyper block as recited in claim 3;
and (c) transmitting that key along with matched blocks information as
recited in claim 4?
(3) transmitting the reference key (claim 7) or the new reference key
and the data block (claim 8) to a communication device having an
asymmetrical cache relative to the cache?
3
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 5
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, determining if a reference key exists
in a cache storing previously-saved reference keys. The two limitations
following this initial condition specify two possible outcomes of the recited
determination, namely when the reference key exists in this particular cache
and when it does not. Indeed, these are the only two possibilities of the
recited determination: either the reference key exists in the cache or it does
not.
These possibilities recited in claim 1 ’s two “when” clauses are
conditional limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, slip
op. at 9—10 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).2 Although the limitations
at issue in Schulhauser were rendered conditional by the recitation of “if’
(see id. at 6—8), we discern no meaningful distinction between the recitation
of “if’ and “when” in this context. During examination, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Indeed, one dictionary definition of “when” is “in the event that: on
condition that: IF.” Merriam-Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary
of the English Language 2602 (2002). Accordingly, we construe “when”
to be synonymous with “if’; therefore, the term “when” in the context of
claim 1 renders the associated limitations conditional.
2 This decision is available at the Board’s web site at
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-
decisions/decisions-and-opinions/precedential.
4
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
To be sure, there are only two possibilities of claim l’s determination
despite the fact that these two possibilities are conditional due to their
respective “when” clauses. That is, one condition must occur from these
two possibilities. But because only one condition must occur from the
recited determination, only one condition need be satisfied to meet claim 1—
not both.
Turning to the rejection, it is undisputed that Zhao teaches the first
four steps of claim 1, including the first recited condition, namely
transmitting a reference key over a backhaul link when the key exists in the
cache. See Final Act. 2—3; see also Br. 5—7 (arguing limitations recited in
only the second condition).
Given the Examiner’s undisputed findings, we see no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 regardless of whether Zhao and Hashimoto
teach the limitations of the second recited condition because claim 1 is
rendered unpatentable by, among other things, Zhao satisfying the first
condition. See Schulhauser at 9—10. For that reason alone, Appellants’
arguments regarding the prior art’s alleged shortcomings pertaining to only
the second condition are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, as well as claim 5, not argued separately with particularity.
Because our analysis changes the thrust of the rejection, we designate our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Claim 2
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, which recites
aggregating blocks into hyper blocks. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. Although
5
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
Zhao’s paragraph 96 teaches various sequences of processing received
transmissions as Appellants assert (Br. 7), Appellants do not persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s finding that Zhao’s paragraph 96 at least suggests the
recited aggregation by processing multiple transmissions of data blocks
simultaneously. Appellants’ arguments are, therefore, unavailing and not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2.
Claim 3
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, which recites
assigning a hyper reference key to each hyper block. Despite Appellants’
arguments to the contrary (Br. 7), Appellants do not squarely address—let
alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s additional reliance on Zhao’s
paragraph 98 for at least suggesting the recited assignment. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 5. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the
Examiner’s position.
Claim 4
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, which recites
transmitting the hyper reference key along with matched blocks information.
Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 8), Appellants do not
squarely address or persuasively rebut the Examiner’s additional reliance on
Zhao’s paragraph 98 for at least suggesting the recited transmission. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 5—6. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record
favors the Examiner’s position.
6
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
Claim 7
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, which recites
transmitting the reference key to a communication device having an
asymmetrical cache relative to the cache. Paragraph 53 of Appellants’
Specification explains that because (1) intelligent data compression method
(IDCM) module 250 only stores reference keys in its cache, and (2) IDCM
module 245 stores both reference keys and data blocks in its cache, the
caches are asymmetrical. Although this description informs our
understanding of the recited asymmetrical cache, it is not limiting.
Therefore, we see no error in the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable,
interpretation of the recited asymmetrical cache as a cache with two sides
having different purposes. See Ans. 6.
Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 8), Appellants do
not squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s
additional reliance on Zhao’s paragraphs 97 and 101 for at least suggesting
the recited asymmetrical cache, namely a cache with two sides having
different purposes. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. Appellants’ arguments are
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Accordingly,
the weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position.
Claim 8
For reasons similar to those indicated for claim 7, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, which recites transmitting the new
reference key and the data block to a communication device having an
asymmetrical cache relative to the cache. On this record, we see no error in
7
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the recited
asymmetrical cache as a cache with two sides having different purposes.
Ans. 6.
Given this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 8—9), Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s additional reliance on Zhao’s paragraphs
88, 97, and 101 for at least suggesting the recited asymmetrical cache,
namely a cache with two sides having different purposes. Final Act. 4; Ans.
7 (referring to the rationale articulated in connection with claim 7).
Appellants’ arguments are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope
of the claim. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors
the Examiner’s position.
Claims 16—18
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16
which recites in pertinent part, a processor configured to generate a
reference key corresponding to each data block, and store only the reference
keys in a cache, without storing the data blocks in the cache. Final Act. 4—5;
Ans. 7—8.
As shown in Zhao’s Figure 7a, Zhao’s system generates a signature
(reference key) for selected blocks in step 711, and, if the signature is
already stored in a content cache in step 713, only the signature is stored in a
signature-data buffer in step 715. Zhao 83—85. Zhao shows similar
functionality in steps 815, 817, and 819 of Figure 8a. See Zhao 100-01.
Therefore, Zhao at least suggests storing only reference keys (i.e.,
signatures) in a cache, namely a buffer. Notably, nothing in claim 16
8
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
precludes the recited cache from being a buffer, particularly in light of the
plain meaning of the term “cache” which is “[a] buffer storage that contains
frequently accessed instructions and data . . . [and] is used to reduce access
time.” IBM Dictionary of Computing 80 (10th ed. 1994) (emphasis
added). Accord Ian R. Sinclair, The HarperCollins Dictionary of
Computer Terms 34 (1991) (defining “cache memory” as “a form of buffer
memory”).
So even assuming, without deciding, that the cited prior art
collectively teaches storing both Zhao’s signature (reference key) and data
block directly to a different storage region instead of the content cache as
Appellants contend (Br. 9), the claim still does not preclude Zhao’s storing
only the signature to another cache, namely the signature-data buffer in step
715. Appellants’ arguments are, therefore, not commensurate with the scope
of the claim.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 16, and claims 17 and 18, not argued separately with
particularity. Because our analysis changes the thrust of the rejection, we
designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Claims 21—25, 27, and 28
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 21 which recites limitations similar to those in independent method
claim 1—including the conditional limitations—but is directed to an
apparatus, namely an RNC or SGW.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim with
structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition
9
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should
the condition occur. Schulhauser at 14—15. Therefore, our interpretation of
apparatus claim 21 differs from method claim 1 because the structure,
namely the hardware processor configured to perform the recited functions,
is present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the
function is actually performed.
That is, Zhao and Hashimoto must collectively teach or suggest
structure capable of, among other things, (1) determining if a reference key
exists in a cache storing previously saved reference keys, and (2) when the
reference key does not exist in that cache, save a new reference key to the
cache without saving the data block to the cache. On this record, however,
we find the Examiner’s rejection falls short in this regard.
Regarding step (2), the Examiner finds that Zhao determines whether
a block signature (reference key) is stored in the content cache in step 713.
See Final Act. 6 (citing Zhao 1 85). As shown in Figure 7a, if such a
signature does not exist in the content cache, both the signature and block
are saved to the content cache and buffer in step 717—not just the new
reference key. See Zhao 1 87. Zhao shows similar functionality in steps 817
and 819 of Figure 8a. See Zhao 1101.
The Examiner’s reliance on Hashimoto to cure this deficiency (Final
Act. 6; Ans. 3 4) is unavailing. Although Hashimoto can store data directly
to a storage region 11 to effectively bypass cache region 21 in paragraph 53,
that does not mean it would have been obvious to not store the data block in
Zhao’s content cache, and store only the signature in that cache in step 717
in Figure 7a or step 821 in Figure 8a. As Appellants indicate (Br. 11—12),
Zhao teaches storing both the signature and data block in the content cache
10
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
in step 717. Thus, the Zhao/Hashimoto system would, at best, store both a
signature and data block directly to a different storage region, and not only
one type of data as the Examiner seems to suggest. See Final Act. 6—7; Ans.
3^4. To the extent that the Examiner finds otherwise, the Examiner fails to
substantiate such a finding.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 21, and dependent claims 22—25, 27, and 28 for similar
reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellants’ other
associated arguments.
THE REJECTION OVER ZHAO, HASHIMOTO, AND FEDER
We will, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Claim
6 depends from claim 1 and recites binding a session in the cache from a
first peer over to a second peer when a user migrates from a first to a second
base station. Our emphasis underscores that the term “when” is a
conditional limitation that need not be satisfied to meet the claim as noted
previously. See Schulhauser at 9—10. Because we determine that claim 6 is
a conditional limitation that need not be satisfied, Appellants’ arguments
regarding Feder’s alleged shortcomings in the rejection (Br. 15—16) are
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We reach this conclusion despite the fact that claim 6 is dependent,
and whose sole limitation is conditional. A dependent claim is a claim to the
invention of the parent claim with the added feature: it is not a claim to the
added feature alone. Natron Corp. v. Schurka U.S.A. Inc., 558 F.3d 1352,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, our analysis of a conditional limitation is
11
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
the same regardless of whether the limitation appears in an independent
claim or a dependent claim.
But even if the session binding recited in claim 6 were required
(which it is not), Appellants still do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
reliance on Feder mobility-management-based hand-off functionality in
paragraph 67 for teaching the recited binding. Such an enhancement uses
prior art elements predictably according to their established functions—an
obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
Appellants’ arguments regarding Feder’s alleged shortcomings in this
regard (Br. 16) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is
based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6.
Claim 26, however, depends from claim 21—the rejection of which
we find problematic, as noted previously. Because the Examiner has not
shown that Feder cures those deficiencies, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
CONCEUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—8 and 16—
18, but erred in rejecting claims 21—28.
We designate our affirmance of the rejection of claims 1—8 and 16—18
as a new ground of rejection.
12
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting 1—8, 16—18, and 21—28 is affirmed-
in-part.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within
two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following
two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination
of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not
previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner,
overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should
the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board
pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must
address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new
ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is
sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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).
13
Appeal 2016-004913
Application 13/400,527
AFFIRMED-IN-P ART:
37C.F.R. $41.500))
14