Ex Parte DuaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201411955219 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation