Ex Parte Krishnamurthy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2013

10848640 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/848,640 05/18/2004 Sanjay M. Krishnamurthy 50277-2255 5622
42425 7590 08/27/2013
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SANJAY M. KRISHNAMURTHY
____________________

Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

2
This is a decision on Appellant’s Request for Rehearing filed on
August 1, 2013 (hereinafter “Request”).
In the Decision On Appeal mailed June 25, 2013 (hereinafter
“Decision”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “Board”)
affirmed the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19 as being
anticipated by Dodds (US 2006/0101320 A1) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(Decision 2, 6, 9-10, 14, and 15), and reversed the Examiner’s final rejection
of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 as lacking both written description and
enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Decision 2, 6-9, 14, and
15).
Because (i) Appellant only requests rehearing as to the Board’s
Decision regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19; (ii)
the Decision addressed claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19
(Decision 4, fn. 2); and (iii) Appellant only presents specific arguments as to
claim 1 (Request, ¶¶ 4-6, 8, 9, and 15, arguing only claim 1), we only
address claim 1 herein. Further, we only reconsider the Decision with
regard to the anticipation of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19 based on the specific
allegations made by Appellant in the Request, and we do not reconsider the
Decision with regard to the written description and enablement rejections of
claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16.
The Board sustained the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1,
3-9, and 11-19 (Decision 2, 6, 9-10, 14, and 15), based on (i) answering
Issue (3) (see Decision 5) in the negative, and (ii) finding Appellant’s
arguments regarding claim 1 unpersuasive (see App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 5-
7; Decision 6 and 9-10) because the Examiner properly found that at least
Dodds’ NamePath values disclose the hash values recited in claim 1 (Ans.
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

3
11; Decision 9). The Board adopted the findings and reasons of the
Examiner set forth in the Answer regarding Dodds and claim 1 (Ans. 5-6), as
well as the reasons set forth by the Examiner in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief regarding Dodds and claim 1 (Ans. 11-12). Decision 6.
In finding that “Dodds discloses using a character-based order when
generating hash values reflecting an order of pathnames, as recited in
representative claim 1” (Decision 6), the Board relied upon the NamePath
values that are based on the XMLNames disclosed in Dodds (Decision 6
citing Dodds at ¶¶ [0029]-[0034] and [0054]), noting that Dodds’ eXtensible
Markup Language (XML) Name values have alphanumeric properties (i.e.,
can contain numbers or letters) (Decision 6 and 10 citing Dodds at ¶ [0029]).
Additionally, the Board found that Dodds’ path names composed of
alphanumeric characters would inherently be ordered based on character
(Decision 10). The Board’s finding that character-based ordering is inherent
is primarily based on responding to Appellant’s argument that “Dodds fails
to disclose ‘the order being character-based’” (Decision 9 citing App. Br.
11-14 and Reply Br. 5-7), and the finding that Dodds inherently orders path
names based on characters because the path names in Dodds are composed
of alphanumeric characters (and alphanumeric characters inherently have an
order to them, e.g., 1-10 or A-Z).
At pages 2-6 of the Request, Appellant presents arguments only with
regard to the anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 based on the
Dodds reference. Appellant contends that the Board misinterpreted or
overlooked the following four principal points in the Decision:
(A) Dodds’ XMLName values are hash values generated based on
character values of pathnames as in claim 1 (Request, ¶¶ 4-6), and
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

4
Dodds discloses XMLName values, NamePath values, or
OrderPath values that meet the limitation highlighted in claim 1
reprinted supra (Request, ¶ 13);
(B) Dodds inherently discloses path names being ordered based on
character (Request, ¶¶ 7-9), and Dodds’ NamePath values
correspond to the “pathnames” composed of alphanumeric
characters, as recited in claim 1 (Request, ¶ 8);
(C) Neither case precedent, evidence, nor any admission by Appellant
makes it inherent to order using characters (Request, ¶¶ 10-12 and
15); and
(D) Dodds’ OrderPath values are breadth-wise enumerated and, thus,
not order based on character (Request, ¶¶ 13 and 14).
Representative claim 1 is reprinted below with emphasis on the key
limitation:
1. A method for providing access to data for nodes of an
information hierarchy, wherein said data for said nodes are
stored in a plurality of rows of a table, the method comprising
the steps of:
generating a plurality of hash values that reflects an
order of a plurality of pathnames associated with said nodes,
wherein each hash value in the plurality of hash values is
generated based on character values of a particular pathname
in the plurality of pathnames, the order being character-based;
wherein each pathname of said plurality of pathnames
corresponds to a row of said plurality of rows and identifies a
location within the information hierarchy of a node whose data
is stored in the row; and
storing, in a database, said plurality of hash values in an
index that associates said plurality of hash values with said
plurality of rows;

Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

5
wherein said index is ordered by said plurality of hash
values as key values;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.

We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellant’s comments
in the Request, and we find no errors therein. We, therefore, decline to
change the Decision for at least the following reasons.
The Examiner correctly found that Dodds discloses generating “hash
values” as recited in representative claim 1, at least because Dodds’
NamePath values, which are based in turn on XMLName values, are hash
values, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “hash
values” in light of Appellant’s Specification, admissions, and relevant
extrinsic evidence (see Ans. 6 and 11-12).
Appellant’s contention (A) supra is unpersuasive because the Board
adopted the Examiner’s findings that Dodd’s NamePath corresponds to the
hash values recited in claim 1 (Decision 6 citing Ans. 11), and the Board did
not rely on Dodd’s XMLName values as disclosing the recited hash values.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office is permitted to use
dictionary definitions in tandem with the specification and prosecution
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

6
history to enlighten the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term,
and our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has
held that “dictionary definitions are [] pertinent.” In re Trans Tex. Holdings
Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
A hash value is a value generated by a hash algorithm or hash
function in which a variable length data value is mapped to a fixed length
data value. In other words, a variable length data value, e.g., a word or path
name, is mapped to a hash value, e.g. fixed length data value or number,
using the hashing algorithm/function. As defined by MICROSOFT COMPUTER
DICTIONARY, 5th Ed., page 247 (2002), “hash” means “[t]o be mapped to a
numerical value by a transformation function known as a hashing function.”
This is congruent with the intrinsic evidence of record, namely
Appellant’s own Specification, which describes hash path signatures as
being hash values that represent a particular path or path name and “are
much smaller (in terms of storage space needed to store them) than the
pathnames they represent” (Spec. ¶ [0053]).
In addition, Appellant discloses that the procedure used to generate
hash path signatures or hash values shown in Figure 7 of the Drawings “is
based on the standards and approaches for generating hash values prescribed
in Digest Values for DOM (DOM[H]ASH), by H. Maruyama, K. Tamura, N.
Uramoto, IBM (April 200, RFC 2803), the contents of which are
incorporated by reference” (Spec. ¶ [0066]). Appellant also discloses that
the procedure of Figure 7 used to generate hash values for nodes does so “by
invoking the function DOMHASH, which returns a hash value” (Spec.
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

7
¶ [0067]). Appellant further admits that procedures such as DOMHASH for
generating hash values “are well known methods” (Spec. ¶ [0068]).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “hash values,” in light of Appellant’s Specification
and admissions, is: values representing a path or path name that are smaller
in length and/or size than the pathnames they represent, and that have been
mapped or generated by a transformation function known as a hashing
function.
In this light, Dodds’ NamePath values in the NamePath Table
(¶¶ [0031] and [0032]) are hash values because they are shorter, numerical
values generated based on character values (e.g., alphanumerical values such
as the numbers used for XMLName and/or NamePath, and/or such as the
letters used for the Attribute Name values shown in the XMLName Table of
¶ [0029]) of a particular path name (e.g., Document Type Definition (DTD)
Node value shown in the NamePath Table of ¶ [0031] that describes the path
for the node and is based on the Attribute Name value describing the final
destination, or the XMLName value in the XMLName Table, shown in
Table 1 and described in ¶ [0029]). And the order of the path names is
character-based because the DTD Node values (i.e., path names) and the
NamePath values (i.e., hash values), which are based on the XMLName
values, each contain letters and numbers (i.e., are alphanumeric), where the
order of path names is based on the letters and numbers used and letters
(e.g., A-Z) and numbers (e.g., 1-10) have an order.
In other words, the order of the DTD Node values in the NamePath
Table shown in Dodds’ paragraph [0031] is based on characters (e.g.,
letters); and, the order of the NamePath values (which are based on the
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

8
XMLName values of Table 1) is based on characters (e.g., numbers as
shown in the tables of ¶¶ [0029] and [0031]). The fact that non-character
elements (e.g., “/”) are also used in the path names is irrelevant because
claim 1 does not contain a negative limitation that excludes the use of path
names containing both character and non-character elements (e.g.,
“library/periodical”).
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of
the Specification, we find the ordinary meaning for “hash values” to include
Dodds’ NamePath values, which are in turn based on the XMLName values
(see Dodds, Table 1 and NamePath Table; ¶¶ [0029]-[0032]).
Furthermore, our agreement with the Examiner’s determination that
Dodds’ NamePath is a hash value (see Ans. 11) is supported by intrinsic and
extrinsic evidence, such as (i) MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 5th Ed.,
page 247 (2002) providing the definition of “hash;” (ii) Appellant’s own
definition of “hash value” (Spec. ¶ [0053]); and (iii) Appellant’s admissions
concerning the prior art and what is well-known as to the procedure or hash
algorithm (e.g., DOMHASH) to generate hash values (Spec. ¶¶ [0066]-
[0068]).
In view of the foregoing extrinsic evidence demonstrating the
knowledge available to the ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of data
processing, storage, indexing, and retrieval using XML to access data in a
hierarchical database, we cannot agree with Appellant (Request 2-6) that our
determination that Dodds discloses, inherently or expressly, the salient
feature of representative claim 1 of “generating a plurality of hash values
that reflects an order of a plurality of pathnames associated with said nods,
wherein each hash value in the plurality of hash values is generated based on
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

9
character values of a particular pathname in the plurality of pathnames, the
order being character-based,” in the Decision (Decision 2, 6, and 9-10) is in
error.
Appellant’s contentions (B) and (C) supra are unpersuasive (i) in light
of the evidence and reasoning discussed above; (ii) because Dodds’
NamePath value (i.e., hash value) generating procedure is based on
numerical NamePath values which are in turn based on alphanumeric
XMLName values; (iii) Dodds’ alphabetic DTD Node values in the
NamePath Table (see Dodds, ¶¶ [0031] and [0032]), and/or Dodds’
XMLName values (see Dodds ¶ [0029]) correspond to the “pathnames”
recited in claim 1; (iv) the Board did not rely on Dodds’ NamePath values as
corresponding to the “pathnames” recited in claim 1; and (v) values
comprised of alphanumeric characters inherently have an order (e.g., 1-10
and/or A-Z), so any path name, whether it be comprised of letters and/or
numbers, is inherently has an order that is character-based.
Furthermore, Appellant’s contention (C) concerning the inherency of
character-based ordering of pathnames is not well-taken in light of the
determination of the Board that (i) one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that paragraphs [0054] and [0066] of Appellant’s Specification
disclose ordering pathnames composed of numbers and letters that are
capable of having an alphanumeric order (Decision 8); and (ii) therefore,
that claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are enabled and have written description
support in the Specification (Decision 8-9). Appellant cannot have it both
ways (lack of inherency of character-based order, and at the same time ease
of the ordinarily skilled artisan in understanding that character-based
ordering of pathnames and nodes is enabled and supported with written
Appeal 2011-001796
Application 10/848,640

10
description in paragraphs [0054] and [0066] of the Specification that
nowhere mention the term “character”).
Appellant’s contention (D) supra is unpersuasive because the Board
and the Examiner rely upon Dodds’ NamePath values as corresponding to
the hash values recited in claim 1 (Decision 6 citing Ans. 11) and, therefore,
it is irrelevant whether or not Dodds’ OrderPath values are breadth-wise
enumerated and not ordered based on character.
In summary, we have carefully considered the arguments raised by
Appellant in the Request, but none of these arguments is persuasive that the
Decision is in error. We find that Appellant has not shown the Board
misapprehended the disclosure of Dodds or overlooked any arguments made
in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief in sustaining the rejection of claim 1 as
being anticipated by Dodds under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellant’s Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our Decision with respect to claims
1, 3-9, and 11-19, but we deny Appellant’s request with respect to making
any change thereto.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

llw