Jad Saliba

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2021

2020003099 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021)

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.
14/498,325 09/26/2014 Jad John Saliba 22256-P44655US01 4164
1059 7590 10/20/2021
BERESKIN & PARR LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.
40 KING STREET WEST
40TH FLOOR
TORONTO, ONTARIO M5H 3Y2
CANADA
EXAMINER
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2021 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):
ipprocessingcentre@bereskinparr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAD JOHN SALIBA
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325
Technology Center 2100

Before BETH Z. SHAW, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–14, 16, and 17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magnet
Forensics Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods, systems, and devices for
identifying an application type of unknown data. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of identifying an application type of unknown
data, the method comprising:
receiving a file of unknown application type comprising
the unknown data;
determining that the unknown data in the file of unknown
application type is suggestive of a database source, based on the
unknown data comprising at least one table with at least one
column;
in response to determining that the unknown data is
suggestive of a database source, for a column of a table in the
database information,
determining if a column identifier of the column
comprises a keyword associated with a particular application
type;
retrieving a content sample data record that is within the
column;
determining if a subset of the content sample data record
matches dictionary data, the dictionary data predetermined
based on expected content associated with the particular
application type; and
if the column identifier comprises the keyword and if the
subset of the content sample matches the dictionary data,
identifying data stored in the file of unknown application type
as stored by an application that is of the particular application
type.
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Andrew US 5,542,086 July 30, 1996
Burroughs US 5,956,725 Sept. 21, 1999
Flamme US 6,070,539 June 6, 2000
Collins US 2002/0013817 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
Spetsmann US 2003/0050935 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Schmidt US 2009/0043786 A1 Feb. 12, 2009
Becerra US 2010/0257438 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
De Barros US 2010/0318489 A1 Dec. 16, 2010
Mazoue US 2014/0258341 A1 Sept. 11, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over De Barros, Schmidt, Becerra, and Andrew. Non-
Final Act. 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
De Barros, Schmidt, Becerra, Andrew, and Mazoue. Non-Final Act. 8.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over De Barros, Schmidt, Becerra, Andrew, and Burroughs.
Non-Final Act. 9
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over De Barros, Schmidt, Becerra, Andrew, and Flamme. Non-
Final Act. 11.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over De Barros, Schmidt, Becerra, Andrew, and Collins. Non-
Final Act. 12.
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

4
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over De Barros, Schmidt, Becerra, Andrew, and Spetsmann.
Non-Final Act. 14.

OPINION
We see no error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. To the
extent consistent with our analysis below, we refer to, rely on, and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Non-Final Action and
Answer.
Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest
determining that the unknown data in the file of unknown application type is
suggestive of a database source. Appeal Br. 10–11. In particular, Appellant
argues that De Barros describes analyzing new data in what is already
known to be a database. Id.; Reply Br. 5. This argument, however, is
unavailing because the Examiner does not rely on De Barros alone to teach
this disputed element of claim 1. Rather, as the Examiner explains in the
Answer:
The Examiner has relied on a combination of three
references to teach the above limitation. Below is summary of
Examiner’s reliance on the different prior art references to teach
the claim language above. A strikethrough indicates that that
limitation is not taught by the reference in question, but is
taught by another reference.

De Barros discloses:
“determining that the unknown data in the file of
unknown application type is suggestive of a database
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

5
source, based on the unknown data comprising at least
one table with at least one column;”

Schmidt teaches:
“determining that the unknown data in the file of
unknown application type is suggestive of a database
source, based on the unknown data comprising at least
one table with at least one column;”

Becerra teaches:
“determining that the unknown data in the file of
unknown application type is suggestive of a database
source, based on the unknown data comprising at least
one table with at least one column.”
Ans. 5. Appellant does not persuasively rebut these findings and
conclusions.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the claim does not
describe how the invention determines that the data is of a database source,
and thus does not preclude the method in De Barros. See Ans. 6. We also
agree with the Examiner’s finding that determining that a new (unknown)
database table is received, as taught by De Barros, teaches, or at least
suggests, “determining that the unknown data is of a database source based
on at least one table with at least one column.” Id. (citing De Barros ¶ 53).
Schmidt teaches the ability to receive an unknown file. Ans. 7 (citing
Schmidt ¶ 26). Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the
Specification or claims limit “unknown data” or “unknown application type”
in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not
encompassed by these references’ teachings, as explained in the Non-Final
Action and Answer.
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Becerra teaches using SQLite
information to map data to a database table. Ans. 8 (citing Becerra ¶¶ 87–
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

6
88). The Examiner notes that, according to the Specification, “reading
header information for a file to determine if it contains . . . SQLite format” is
an example of “determining that the unknown data in the file of unknown
application type is suggestive of a database source, based on the unknown
data comprising at least one table with at least one column.” Id. (citing Spec.
¶ 62). Because Becerra teaches using object data to determine table
information by identifying a SQLite format, Becerra teaches “determining
that the unknown data in the file of unknown application type is suggestive
of a database source.” Id. Appellant’s additional arguments against Becerra
(see Reply Br. 6–7) are not commensurate in scope with the broad language
of the claim.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments against Andrew (see Appeal
Br. 14–15), the Examiner relies on extracting the column data in De Barros
to teach retrieving a content sample that is within a column (Ans. 10 (citing
De Barros ¶ 53)) and relies on Andrew to show that data can be compared to
a dictionary. Ans. 10. Thus, Appellant’s arguments against Andrews’s
individual shortcomings in this regard are unpersuasive because the
Examiner does not rely solely on Andrews for teaching this disputed
element, but rather relies on the combination of De Barros and Andrews to
teach “determining if a subset of the content sample data record matches
dictionary data, the dictionary data predetermined based on expected content
associated with the particular application type,” as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not show nonobviousness where, as
here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

7
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an
articulated reason with some rational underpinning to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). The Supreme Court has instructed that “a court must ask whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417), and apply “an
expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness (id. at 415). We see no
error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness based on the combination
of the references. In the Non-Final Action and Answer, the Examiner
provides a thorough rationale for the combination of the cited references,
and a response to Appellant’s arguments. See Ans. 11–13; Non-Final Act. 3–
7. Appellant does not persuasively rebut these findings and conclusions, and
in the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the
contrary, we find no reversible error.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has
not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim
1 above, the remaining pending claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

Appeal 2020-003099
Application 14/498,325

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 13, 14,
16, 17
103 De Barros,
Schmidt, Becerra,
Andrew
1, 2, 13, 14,
16, 17

4 103 De Barros,
Schmidt, Becerra,
Andrew, Mazoue
4
5, 6 103 De Barros,
Schmidt, Becerra,
Andrew,
Burroughs
5, 6
9, 12 103 De Barros,
Schmidt, Becerra,
Andrew, Flamme
9, 12
7, 10 103 De Barros,
Schmidt, Becerra,
Andrew, Collins
7, 10
8, 11 103 De Barros,
Schmidt, Becerra,
Andrew,
Spetsmann
8, 11
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–14,
16, 17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED