Ex Parte Cannon et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 30, 201211091790 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte LINCOLN C. CANNON and PAUL J. CONOVER ____________ Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-40. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 2 INVENTION The following claims illustrate the invention on appeal: 1. A method for generating a first identifier having a plurality of characters and identifying an object, the method comprising; receiving first seed characters from an object generator, the first seed characters relating to an object; processing the first seed characters to generate a human-readable component and a non-readable component based on rules; applying the rules to determine a syntax of the first identifier; applying the rules to determine placement of the human-readable component relative to the non-readable component; and inserting the human-readable and non-readable components within the first identifier to thereby provide an identifier unique to the object, wherein processing the seed characters, applying the rules, and inserting the human-readable and non-readable components are performed by an identifier module, the identifier module being programmed to reproduce an additional identifier that is identical to the first identifier each time the identifier module uses the rules on additional seed characters that are identical to the first seed characters. 40. A method for generating an identifier, the method comprising: receiving seed characters associated with a first object to be included in a first build of an installation package; processing the seed characters to generate a human- readable component; applying rules to determine a syntax of the identifier; inserting the human-readable component within the first identifier, wherein processing the seed characters, applying the rules, and inserting the human-readable component are performed by an identifier module, the identifier module Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 3 being configured to generate, during a second build of the installation package, a second identifier for the first object, the second identifier being identical to the first identifier. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 14, 19-24, 26, 27, 32-37, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,804,700 B1 ("Terek") and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0020578 Al ("Hood"). Claims 2-5, 15-18, and 28-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terek, Hood, and U.S. Patent No. US 6,532,481 Bl ("Fassett"). Claims 12, 25, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terek, Hood, and U.S. Patent No. 6,857,053 B2 ("Bolik"). Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terek and U.S. Patent No. US 6,675,382 B1 ("Foster"). CLAIMS 1-39 Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-39 on the basis of independent claims 1, 14, and 27. The issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of Terek and Hood would have suggested "processing the first seed characters to generate a human-readable component and a non-readable component" and "inserting the human-readable and non-readable components within the first identifier to thereby provide an identifier unique to the object," required by independent claims 1, 14, and 27? Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 4 The Examiner finds that "Terek clearly discloses in Column.2, lines 30-55 the processing of a descriptive property related to an object (analogous to the seed character from an object . . . relating to an object)." (Ans. 27.) The Examiner further finds that "[t]he unique identifier . . . is a hash value or an incremented value that is appended to the human-readable portion such as 'http://hello-1.html' that is clearly analogous to the non- readable component." (Id.) The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Here, we agree with the Appellants that "Terek does not teach that the hash values are part of Terek's identifiers." (Reply Br. 7.) Instead, Terek teaches that "[a] hashing index may be used to more efficiently search for existing URLs [i.e., uniform resource locators] in order to detect and prevent the creation of non-unique URL names." (Col. 2, ll. 11-15.) In other words, Terek uses hashes to determine whether a new identifier is identical to a previous identifier. "A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis . . . ." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id. For our part, we understand the Examiner's finding about the Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 5 non-readable component to refer to the "the postfix associated with the hash value for human-readable property 212, [which] is appended to human- readable property 212." (Terek, col. 9, ll. 35-37.) More specifically, "each hash value in hash index 250 has an associated postfix." (Terek, col. 9, ll. 33-34.) The postfix is incremented as needed. (E.g., Terek, col. 10, ll. 13-14.) The Examiner does not show, however, that Terek generates the postfix by processing its descriptive property related to an object. We will not resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply this deficiency. Furthermore the examiner introduced the Hood reference which clearly discloses in Paragraph.10, the steps of packaging objects with a random/pseudorandom number to create a unique identifier (the random/pseudorandom is clearly a non-readable value), wherein the unique identifier as described in Paragrpah.12, can utilize identifying indicia (analogous to claim language wherein processing first seed character to generate a nonreadable component). (Ans. 27-28.) We agree with the Appellants, however, that "neither of the cited references shows, teaches, or suggests using the same seed characters to generate readable and non-readable components of an identifier." (Reply Br. 10.) For its part, Hood teaches using inter alia "random data provided by the randomizer 106 to generate a unique identifier and associate it with an object 108." (¶ [0033].) We find that Terek's descriptive property related to an object and Hood's random data do not constitute the same seed characters. Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 6 Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings of Terek and Hood would have suggested "processing the first seed characters to generate a human-readable component and a non- readable component" and "inserting the human-readable and non-readable components within the first identifier to thereby provide an identifier unique to the object," required by independent claims 1, 14, and 27. CLAIM 40 The issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of Terek and Foster would have suggested "generat[ing], during a second build of the installation package, a second identifier for the first object, the second identifier being identical to the first identifier," as required by independent claim 40? The Examiner makes the following findings. Terek discloses in Column.9, lines 64-67 and Column.10, lines 1-12, creating an identical URL or Identifier ''http://hello.html'' when provided with the same subject value of an email (analogous to seed character), hence every time the same seed character is provided to the identifier generating system (which is analogous to a second identifier due to a second access) an identical tentative URL or Identifier is created. (Ans. 29.) The Examiner's explanation of Terek, however, is incomplete. When Terek identifies a "tentative" URL as duplicative, "[t]o distinguish the tentative URL, a second set of rules is then followed to create the URL so as to guarantee uniqueness of the resulting URL." (Col. 10, ll. 4-6.) In fact, the purpose of Terek is to "generat[e] unique and human-readable Appeal 2010-003380 Application 11/091,790 7 URLs for objects included in a network system." (Abstract (emphasis added).) For its part, it is uncontested that "Foster teaches providing an identifier for a package, not for objects included in a package." (App. Br. 11.) The Examiner admits that the same reference's "fields . . . are used to provide a unique identifier for each package instantiated by the system." (Ans. 30.) "For example, the NAME field is used to provide a unique identifier for each package instantiated by the system." (Foster, col. 8, ll. 12-13.) When these teachings from the two references were combined, we find that the result may have created unique identifiers for objects and for packages, but not identical identifiers for objects. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings of Terek and Foster would have suggested "generat[ing], during a second build of the installation package, a second identifier for the first object, the second identifier being identical to the first identifier," as required by independent claim 40. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 14, 27, and 40 and those of claims 2-13, 15-26, and 28-39, which depend therefrom. REVERSED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation