10341770 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2009)

Ex Parte Millard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 20, 2009

10341770 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte THOMAS A. MILLARD, FRANCIS E. NOEL Jr., and NORMAN C. STROLE ____________ Appeal 2008-004590 Application 10/341,770 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: August 20, 2009 ____________ Before LEE E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2008-004590 Application 10/341,770 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-13. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). INVENTION According to the Appellants, database applications often employ a variable length key to access data within a database. "For example, the key may include any number or all of the following: telephone number; social security number; license plate number; employee serial number; name; address; medical record number; account number; or a virtual memory page on a [data access storage device] application." (Spec. 1.) Searching on all of these keys, however, is time consuming and inefficient. (Id.) In contrast, the Appellants' invention makes use of the facts that network processors can search different fields concomitantly; that multiple keys can be used to access a given record in a database; and that the keys can be segmented in a search request for identification of data corresponding thereto in a database. "These searches of the various keys can be done concomitantly and any match quickly returned." (Id. at 3.) ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A method of searching a database for a match of any one of a plurality of keys, comprising the steps of: providing at least one network processor, each having a plurality of pico processors or packet processors; providing at least one key table containing sets of keys and an associated function with each key; 2 Appeal 2008-004590 Application 10/341,770 providing a CPU operatively connected to a network processor; supplying a pre-formatted data record to be searched to said CPU, said pre-formatting including separately identified and searchable fields corresponding to said sets of keys; delivering said pre-formatted records to said network processor or processors from said CPU; searching, in said network processor or processors, at least one of said searchable fields in said pre-formatted data field against at least one set of keys stored in said key table; and if a match is found, returning the matched key and the associated function to the CPU. PRIOR ART Smith 5,509,131 April 16, 1996 Melchior 6,226,710 May 1, 2001 Srinivasan 6,744,652 June 1, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Srinivasan. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Srinivasan and Smith. Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Srinivasan and Melchoir. 3 Appeal 2008-004590 Application 10/341,770 ISSUE "Rather than reiterate the positions of the parties in toto, we focus on an issue therebetween." Ex parte Kuruoglu, No. 2007-0666, 2007 WL 2745820, at *2 (BPAI 2007). The Examiner concludes that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation is applied to the claim[s], and the claim[s] as written do[ ] not require that the key and associated function both be in the key table." (Ans. 8.) He finds that "the CAM blocks are key tables containing sets of keys (col. 6, ll. 18-20, 24-26, 43-45), and an associated function (e.g., additional routing information, etc) is provided with each matching key in the associated data unit (col. 6, ll. 32-36)." (Id.) (quoting Srinivasan â€˜652.) The Appellants argue that "the broadest reasonable interpretation of the subject claim limitation that is consistent with the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, is that the key table includes both keys and their associated functions." (Reply Br. 3.) Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's interpretation of independent claims 1 and 9. LAW "[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "The operative word is reasonable: the PTO has no such obligation regarding unreasonable interpretations." Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1565 n.22 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior 4 Appeal 2008-004590 Application 10/341,770 art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). FINDINGS OF FACT ("FFs") 1. Independent claims 1 and 9 recite in pertinent part the following limitations: "providing at least one key table containing sets of keys and an associated function with each key . . . ." 2. The word "and" is a conjunction defined as "[t]ogether with or along with; in addition to; as well as." The American Heritage Dictionary 108 (2d college ed. 1982). ANALYSIS The independent claims on appeal require "at least one key table containing sets of keys and an associated function with each key." (FF 1 (emphasis added).) The word "and" is a conjunction defined as together with or along with, in addition to, or as well as. (FF 2.) Considering all the limitations, we agree with the Appellants that the broadest, reasonable construction of claims 1 and 9 requires at least one key table that "includes both keys and their associated functions." (Reply Br. 3.) Conversely, we disagree with the Examiner's interpretation that "the claim[s] as written do[ ] not require that the key and associated function both be in the key table." (Ans. 8.) 5 Appeal 2008-004590 Application 10/341,770 CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's interpretation of independent claims 1 and 9. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-13. REVERSED llw Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. 38500 CHARDON ROAD DEPT. IRA WILLOUGBY HILLS, OH 44094 6