Ex Parte Gattegno et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2012

11382304 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YVES GATTEGNO and JULIEN ROPE
____________________

Appeal 2009-015092
Application 11/382,304
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015092
Application 11/382,304

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for operating a data processing system,
comprising:
maintaining a data store accessible to a plurality of operational
entities capable of processing contents of the data store;
denoting at least one part of the data store as a shareable part;
supporting read operations from the data store to the operational
entities and supporting write operations attempted from the
operational entities to the data store, wherein the operational entities
use a predetermined method for selection of portions to be read and
written from/to the data store, including said shareable part of the data
store, said predetermined method including specifying an
identification comprising at least one of a name and address for
identifying the portions selected; wherein a plurality of said
operational entities use the same said identification according to the
predetermined method to identify at least one selected part of the data
store to be read and written;
generating a copy of said selected part of the data store only
upon receiving a write operation request from a given operational
entity, said copy being identifiable by a unique identification
associated with said given operational entity; and,
establishing a version of said selected part of the data store for
said copy, said version being specific to the given operational entity
and subject to customization independently and exclusively of other
versions that are established for and served to one or more other said
operational entities that likewise use the same said identification.

Appeal 2009-015092
Application 11/382,304

3
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lagueux (US 6,538,669 B1).
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-21
because Lagueux fails to teach “establishing a version of said selected part
of the data store for said copy.” (App. Br. 13: first full paragraph).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-21 as being anticipated
because Lagueux fails to disclose the argued “establishing a version”
limitation?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above contention. The Examiner has
erred in finding that Lagueux anticipates the claims.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-21 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) On this record, claims 1-21 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
Appeal 2009-015092
Application 11/382,304

4

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc