Ex Parte Bhatia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201311369738 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RISHI BHATIA, MATTHEW J. SCHULZE, JOHN M. TOMASZESKI, ROBERT B. KITTREDGE, and DAVANUM SRINIVAS ___________ Appeal 2011-006547 Application 11/369,738 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006547 Application 11/369,738 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 1-16. Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to “a method for transforming data includ[ing] creating an array and initializing a value in each array element of the array.” Abstract. Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. A method for moving data from a source file to a target file, comprising: creating an array based, at least in part, on a first data definition of a target file; initializing a value in each array element of the array; storing data in the array from at least a portion of one or more data components in a source file having a second data definition, based on a mapping between the source file data components having the second data definition and one or more target file data components having the first data definition, by: determining whether an array element corresponding to each source file data component is included in the array; in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is included in the array, setting a value of the corresponding array element based, at least in part, on data in that data component; and Appeal 2011-006547 Application 11/369,738 3 in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is not included in the array, discarding that data component; and writing at least a portion of the data stored in the array to one or more target files. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ryan (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0097128 B1; published May 5, 2005). Answer 3-10. Claims 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ryan and Doan (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0060647 A1; published March 17, 2005). Answer 11-13. Issue Do Ryan and Doan, either alone or in combination, disclose “in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is not included in the array, discarding that data component” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend, “Independent Claim 1 is allowable at least because Ryan fails to disclose ‘in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is not included in the array, discarding that data component.’” Appeal Brief 26. Appellants argue Ryan’s paragraphs [0069-70] do not disclose the discarding claim limitation because: Appeal 2011-006547 Application 11/369,738 4 Not only do these paragraphs fails to mention anything remotely regarding “in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is not included in the array, discarding that data component” of Independent Claim 1, but Appellants respectfully note that the paragraphs actually only disclose rules for adding data to a buffer and then to the database. As such, they have absolutely nothing to do with discarding a data component, let alone doing so “in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is not included in the array” of Independent Claim 1. Appeal Brief 27. The Examiner finds Ryan discloses the method of discarding the data components as claimed. Answer 5; Ryan ¶¶ [0050], [0069-70]. However, according to the Examiner: Ryan teaches in response to determining that an array element corresponding to a particular data component is not included in the array, discarding that data component (See Page 6 Paragraphs 69-70 and See Page 4 Paragraph 50). Ryan maps data to according to governing rules. In the event that a data an array does not include a data component, it would be obvious that the particular section would be discarded according to the rules governing the mapping. Answer 15 (emphasis added). That is, the Examiner indicates that it would be “obvious that the particular section would be discarded.” Answer 15 (emphasis added). Claim 1 was rejected as being anticipated by Ryan. Answer 3-5. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We are unsure where in the cited teachings of Ryan Appeal 2011-006547 Application 11/369,738 5 the claimed discarding methodis disclosed, either expressly or inherently. In particular, we find the Examiner’s statement of record that “it would be obvious that the particular section would be discarded according to the rules governing the mapping” (Ans. 15) fails to show how Ryan anticipates claim 1 (we note that claim 1 stands rejected under §102, not § 103). Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as, claims 2-13 that depend upon claim 1. The Examiner does not show how Doan addresses the noted deficiency of Ryan; therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14-16 for the same reasons stated above. DECISION The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-13 is reversed The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14-16 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation