Ex Parte 7378992 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 17, 2012

95000478 (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.
95/000,478 05/21/2009 7378992 2855.002REX5 7980
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)
1

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 2012-002374
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,478
United States Patent 7,378,992 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 2012-002374
Reexamination Control 95/000,478
Patent 7,378,992 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
7,378,992 B2 (the ‘992 patent), entitled “Content Independent Data
Compression Method and System,” assigned to Realtime Data LLC and
issued to James J. Fallon (May 27, 2008). Claims 1-3, 7, 9-15, 18-21, 26-29,
32, 33, and 36 presently stand rejected. Claims 4 and 8 have been
confirmed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ‘992 patent describes “data compression and decompression
using content independent and content dependent data compression and
decompression” (col. 6, ll. 18-20).
Claim 1 on appeal reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a data block;
determining whether or not a data type is identified for said data
block;
compressing, if said data type is identified, said data block with at
least one encoder associated to said data type to provide a compressed data
block;
compressing, if said data type is not identified, said data block with at
last one encoder associated to a nonidentifiable data type to provide said
compressed data block; and
storing said compressed data block.
(App. Br. 51, Claims Appendix.)

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
French US 5,794,229 Aug. 11, 1998
Kawashima US 5,805,932 Sep. 8, 19981

1 Cited in conjunction with corresponding International Publication Number
WO 95/29437 A1 (Nov. 1995).
Appeal 2012-002374
Reexamination Control 95/000,478
Patent 7,378,992 B2

3
Franaszek US 5,870,036 Feb. 9, 1999
Rao US 5,930,358 Jul. 27, 1999
Sebastian US 6,253,264 B1 Jun. 26, 2001
Montville US 6,356,937 B1 Mar. 12, 2002

Rejections

Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franaszek (Ans. 6);
Claims 12-15, 18, 20, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Sebastian (Ans. 11);
Claims 33 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by French (Ans. 14);
Claims 10, 19, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Franaszek and one of Montville or Rao (Ans. 15);
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sebastian and one of Montville or Rao (Ans. 15);
Claims 33 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sebastian and Kawashima (Ans. 16).

DISCUSSION
As stated above, claims 1-3, 7, 9-15, 18-21, 26-29, 32, 33, and 36
presently stand rejected. Appellant “retracts any rebuttal arguments of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 18-21, 26-29, 32, 33, and
36 . . . .”2 Since Appellant does not dispute any of the Examiner’s rejections

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 2012-002374
Reexamination Control 95/000,478
Patent 7,378,992 B2

4
of the claims, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-
13, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, and 32 as being anticipated by Franaszek; claims 12-
15, 18, 20, 21, and 26 as being anticipated by Sebastian; claims 33 and 36 as
being anticipated by French; claims 10, 19, 27, and 29 as being unpatentable
over Franaszek and one of Montville or Rao; Claim 27 as being unpatentable
over Sebastian and one of Montville or Rao; and claims 33 and 36 as being
unpatentable over Sebastian and Kawashima.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 7, 9-15, 18-21, 26-29,
32, 33, and 36 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

Patent Owner

STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Third Party Requester

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
600 13TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3096