Ex Parte Bhatia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2013

11088700 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte RISHI BHATIA
________________

Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
1

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 10-18, 23-27, and 30. Claims 6-9, 19-22, 28, and 29
are canceled. Supp. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed February 23, 2010; the
Supplemental Appeal Brief (Supp. Br.) filed April 12, 2010; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed May 10, 2010; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
July 12, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to comparing at least two versions of a
data file and outputting a file indicating differences in the at least two
versions. Spec. 1:5-6. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for comparing at least two structured data files, the
method comprising the steps of:
determining a first structure for a first data file;
determining a second structure for a second data file;
comparing the first and second structures, wherein comparing the first
and second structures comprises:
retrieving at least one node of the first data file;
determining a level of the at least one node;
retrieving an attribute name of the at least one node;
identifying at least one node of the second data file comprising
the attribute name; and
comparing a first namespace of the at least one node with a
second namespace of the identified at least one node of the second data file
to determine if the at least one node of the first data file matches the
identified at least one node of the second data file at the determined level;
and
generating an output of one or more structural differences.

Claims 1-5, 10-18, 23-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hoffman (CA 2255047 A1, published May 30,
2000) and Rahm (Erhard Rahm et al., Matching Large XML Schemas, 33
SIGMOD RECORD 26-31 (2004)). Ans. 3-20.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds, with regard to claim 1, Hoffman and Rahm
collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 3-6. The Examiner relies on
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

3
Rahm’s taking the namespaces into account when matching two XML
[extensible markup language] schemas for teaching the recited comparing a
first namespace of the at least one node with a second namespace of the
identified at least one node of the second data file. Ans. 5 (citing Rahm,
Abstract; p. 26, ¶ 3; p. 27, ¶ 1; p. 28, sec. 2.3; p. 29, ¶¶ 1-2). The Examiner
reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the system of Hoffman with the teaching of
Rahm in order to compare, match, and map large or complex XML schemas
that include namespaces. Ans. 6 (citing Rahm, Abstract).
Appellant argues the cited portions of Rahm describe distributed
schemas without any discussion of comparing namespaces, and the
disclosure of namespaces does not teach or suggest comparing a namespace
of one node with a namespace of a second node to determine a match
between identified nodes of data files, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 2-3.
In response, the Examiner explains
Section 2.3, page 28 in Rahm discloses a process with
which matching large XML schemas requires matching their
namespaces. Section 3, pages 29-31, discloses the concept of
breaking schemas into sub-schemas (namespace included) when
mapping large XML files.
Ans. 22 (citing Rahm, p. 28, sec. 2.3; pp. 29-31, sec. 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Rahm (p. 28, sec 2.3) describes a schema may be distributed over
several schema documents and namespaces. Rahm (Abstract) describes
matching large schemas and a fragment-oriented match approach. Rahm
elaborates (p. 29, sec. 3.1) on fragment identification, stating: “Hence, entire
schemas and schema nodes (paths) are special fragment types so that the
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

4
previously investigated schema-level and node-level matching approaches
can be considered as variations of fragment matching.”
We see no reason why Rahm’s fragment-oriented match approach
including node-level matching, for matching large schema distributed over
several documents and namespaces, does not describe comparing a first
namespace of the at least one node with a second namespace of the
identified at least one node of the second data file, as recited by claim 1.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because Rahm’s
fragment-oriented matching including node-level matching does compare a
namespace of one node with a namespace of a second node. Further, we note
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner relies on Rahm for teaching comparing a first
namespace of the at least one node with a second namespace of the
identified at least one node of the second data file. Ans. 5. The Examiner
relies on Hoffman for teaching all other recited limitations. Ans. 3-5. The
Examiner reasonably explained why the combined teachings of Hoffman
and Rahm would have suggested the addition of Rahm’s comparing to
Hoffman’s software tool. Ans. 6. Appellant has not provided any persuasive
rebuttal or persuasive explanation as to why the Examiner’s stated rejection
and explanation are insufficient.
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

5
Weighing Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-4,
10-12, 14-17, 23-25, 27, and 30, which are not argued separately.

Claims 5 and 18
The Examiner finds, with regard to claim 5, Hoffman and Rahm
collectively teach and suggest all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Hoffman,
p. 6, ll. 14-25; p. 7, ll. 3-8; p. 10, ll. 20-25; p. 12, ll. 1-7).
Appellant argues Hoffman is directed to merging similar XML
documents, and does not determine that first and second data files are
different based on a comparison of a parent node of the files. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 3.
In response, the Examiner (referring to Hoffman) explains
Lines 20-25, page 10 and lines 6-25 discloses the process
of comparing two or more XML files by passing in or starting
out at the root nodes. And in the process of doing so if there
exists a difference in a tree’s sub nodes or attributes, there is a
difference between said XML files.
Ans. 22.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Hoffman (p. 10, ll. 20-25) describes
When comparing XML files, the user selects the base and
the modified XML files. Using an XML parser the two files are
parsed and the two parse trees obtained. Each node in the tree
corresponds to an element in the XML document.
The two trees are being walked in parallel, starting from
the root and at each level nodes are matched from the two trees
and added to a merged tree (or comparison tree) and tagged
appropriately (new, removed, changed, same).
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

6
We see no reason why Hoffman’s walking two parse trees in parallel
and matching nodes at each level to make a merged tree does not describe
determining if the parent node of the first data file matches the parent node
of the second data file, as recited by claim 5.
Further, we see no reason why Hoffman’s merged tree tagged
appropriately (new, removed, changed, same) does not describe if the parent
nodes do not match, determining the first and second data files are different
(changed), as recited by claim 5.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because Hoffman does
determine that first and second data files are different based on a comparison
of a parent node of the files when Hoffman matches nodes at each level to
make a merged tree and tags appropriately (new, removed, changed, same).
Weighing Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 5. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, as well as claim 18,
which is not argued separately.

Claims 13 and 26
The Examiner finds, with regard to claim 13, Hoffman and Rahm
collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Hoffman, p. 6, ll. 25-
29; p. 8, ll. 7-20).
Appellant argues Hoffman is directed to tagging nodes and
displaying a merged tree to show differences, and Hoffman does not teach or
suggest selecting a particular addition or deletion from the outputted
structural differences and then applying the addition or deletion to the
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

7
associated data file to generate a third file, as recited by Claim 13. App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 4.
In response, the Examiner (referring to Hoffman) explains
Lines 25-29, page 6, lines 7-20, page 8 and lines 18-28,
page 9 disclose displaying conditions / parameters of choice
with which the user can select nodes to show differences.
Ans. 23.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Hoffman (p. 6, ll. 25-29) describes
The second part of the comparison process is the merging
of differences. This is accomplished by the user selecting nodes
that show differences (i.e. nodes that are tagged as new,
removed or changed). The goal is to resolve differences at each
changed, new, or removed node by choosing to select data from
either of the two structures being compared, and incorporating
the selected data into a merged structure.
We see no reason why Hoffman’s user selecting a node that shows
differences, resolving differences, and incorporating the selected data into a
merged structure does not describe selecting at least one addition or deletion,
and applying the selected addition or deletion to the first or second data file
to create a third data file, as recited by claim 13.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because Hoffman does
select a particular addition or deletion from the outputted structural
differences and then apply the addition or deletion to the associated data file
to generate a third file when Hoffman’s user selects a node, differences are
resolved, and data is incorporated into a merged structure.
Weighing Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 13. We,
Appeal 2010-011067
Application 11/088,700

8
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, as well as claim 26,
which is not argued separately.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 10-18, 23-27, and 30 is
affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

cdc