Ex Parte 7161506 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 17, 2012

95000479 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,479 05/28/2009 7161506 2855.002REX3 2572
26111 7590 01/18/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.
Respondent
v.

REALTIME DATA LLC.
Patent Owner, Appellant
____

Appeal 2012-002371
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
United States Patent 7,161,506 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002371
Reexamination Control 95/000,479
Patent 7,161,506 B2

2

This proceeding arose from a third party request on behalf of Blue
Coat Systems, Inc. for an inter partes reexamination of U. S. Patent
7,161,506 B2 (the ‘506 patent), entitled “Systems and Methods for Data
Compression such as Content Dependent Data Compression,” assigned to
Realtime Data LLC and issued to James J. Fallon (January, 9, 2007). Claims
1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98
presently stand rejected. Claims 6, 7, 16, 41, and 42 have been confirmed.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ‘506 patent describes “data compression and decompression
using content independent and content dependent data compression and
decompression” (col. 6, ll. 21-23).
Claim 1 on appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for compressing data, comprising the steps of:
analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify one or more
data types of the data block, the input data stream comprising a plurality of
disparate data types;
performing content dependent data compression; if a data type of the
data block is identified;
performing data compression with a single data compression encoder,
if the data type of the data block is not identified.
(App. Br. 44, Claims Appendix.)
Appeal 2012-002371
Reexamination Control 95/000,479
Patent 7,161,506 B2

3

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
MacLean US 5,167,034 Nov. 24, 1992
Kawashima US 5,805,932 Sep. 8, 19981
Franaszek US 5,870,036 Feb. 9, 1999
Reynar US 5,951,623 Sep. 14, 1999
Sebastian US 6,253,264 B1 Jun. 26, 2001

CCITT, “Data Compression Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating
Equipment (DCE) Using Error Correction Procedures,” Recommendation
V.42 bis, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 1990
(“CCITT”).

Rejections

Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43, 69, 72, 73, 79, and 81 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sebastian (Ans. 5);
Claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84, and 85 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franaszek (Ans. 8);
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sebastian, Franaszek, and Reynar (Ans. 9);
Claims 27 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sebastian and any one of CCITT or Reynar (Ans. 10);
Claim 82 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sebastian and MacLean (Ans. 11);
Claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96, and 98 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sebastian and Kawashima (Ans. 11).

1 Cited in conjunction with corresponding International Publication Number
WO 95/29437 A1 (Nov. 1995).
Appeal 2012-002371
Reexamination Control 95/000,479
Patent 7,161,506 B2

4

DISCUSSION
As stated above, claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79,
81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98 presently stand rejected. Appellant “retracts any
rebuttal arguments of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17,
20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-78, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98. . . .”2 Since
Appellant does not dispute any of the Examiner’s rejections of the claims,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43,
69, 72, 73, 79, and 81 as being anticipated by Sebastian; claims 69, 70, 72,
73, 79, 81, 82, 84, and 85 as being anticipated by Franaszek; claim 20 as
being unpatentable over Sebastian, Franaszek, and Reynar; claims 27 and 39
as being unpatentable over Sebastian and any one of CCITT or Reynar;
claim 82 as being unpatentable over Sebastian and MacLean; and claims 70,
71, 84-90, 96, and 98 as being unpatentable over Sebastian and Kawashima.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27,
39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96, and 98 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.

AFFIRMED
rvb

2 Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.71, Retracting the
Arguments Made to Overcome the Claim Rejections and Thereby
Eliminating the Issues on Appeal, filed October 28, 2011, p. 6.
Appeal 2012-002371
Reexamination Control 95/000,479
Patent 7,161,506 B2

5

Patent Owner

STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOXX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Third Party Requester

MICHAEL A. MESSINA, ESQ.
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
600 13TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3096