Ex Parte Dua

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2014

11955219 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SWARANJIT SINGH DUA
____________

Appeal 2012-001360
Application 11/955,219
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–16, and 18–20.
Claims 4, 8, and 17 have been canceled. (App. Br. 4.)1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) filed May 25, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed July 19, 2011.
Appeal 2012-001360
Application 11/955,219

2

Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems, computer-readable
media, and methods for matching block data records and loading the best
matched records into a database. (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 5–7; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for matching bulk data, comprising:
receiving a plurality of input records;
performing block distribution on the plurality of input
records to obtain a plurality of block records, wherein
performing block distribution comprises distributing the
plurality of input records to a first plurality of containers;
performing concurrent matching operations on the
plurality of block records to obtain a plurality of single best
records,
wherein performing concurrent matching operations
on the plurality of block records comprises matching block
records in each container of the first plurality of containers by:
determining a match threshold weight;
comparing a match weight for a pair of input
records in one of the plurality of block records to the match
threshold weight; and
determining the pair of input records to be a match
when the match weight of the pair of input records is not less
than the match threshold weight,
wherein the matched pair of input records is used
to obtain one of the plurality of single best records, wherein
each of the plurality of single best records comprises a unified
Appeal 2012-001360
Application 11/955,219

3

profile of data compiled from a matched set of input records;
and
loading the plurality of single best records into a master
index database.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–16, and 18–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,469,241 B2,
issued Dec. 23, 2008 (filed June 17, 2005) (“Bellamkonda”) and US Patent
No. 7,325,013 B2, issued Jan. 9, 2008 (filed Apr. 22, 2004) (“Caruso”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Bellamkonda and Caruso collectively would have taught or suggested
determining a match threshold weight;
comparing a match weight for a pair of input records in
one of the plurality of block records to the match threshold
weight; and
determining the pair of input records to be a match when
the match weight of the pair of input records is not less than the
match threshold weight
within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 10 and 18?

Appeal 2012-001360
Application 11/955,219

4

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious in view of Bellamkonda and Caruso. (Ans. 5–7, 17–23.)
Appellant contends that the combination does not teach the disputed features
of claim 1. (App. Br. 8–14.) Specifically, Appellant contends that
the claimed invention requires . . . matching block records in
each container by determining a match threshold weight and
then comparing the match threshold weight to a matched weight
of a pair of input records [and] determining the pair of input
records to be a match when the match weight of the pair of
input records is not less than the match threshold weight . . . .
(App. Br. 9.) Appellant further contends Caruso does not teach determining
the match threshold weight or determining a match when the match weight
of the pair of input records exceeds (is not less than) the match threshold
weight. (App. Br. 10.)
We agree with Appellant that the portions of Bellamkonda and, in
particular, Caruso identified by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the
disputed features of independent claim 1. (App. Br. 9–10.) As pointed out
by Appellant, Caruso teaches an error tolerance threshold, not determining a
match threshold weight, and Caruso teaches that matching occurs when the
distance between frames in a stream is less than (does not exceed) the error
threshold. (App. Br. 10; Caruso, col. 4, ll. 50–67.) We cannot agree with
the Examiner that Caruso’s general description of a threshold value (the
error tolerance threshold) is somehow equivalent to determining a match
weight threshold (match threshold weight), much less that Caruso’s teaching
of matching, which occurs when distance values are less than the error
Appeal 2012-001360
Application 11/955,219

5

threshold, is equivalent to determining a match when a match weight value
exceeds a threshold (match threshold weight) as required by claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Bellamkonda and
Caruso teaches the recited features of Appellant’s claim 1. Appellant’s
independent claims 10 and 18 include limitations of commensurate scope.
Appellant’s dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 11–16, 19, and 20 depend on and
stand with claims 1, 10, and 18 respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–16, and 18–20.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3,
5–7, 9–16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–16, and
18–20.

REVERSED

tj