Ex Parte Byrne et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2014

11392399 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014)

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.
11/392,399 03/28/2006 John C. Byrne 102727-200 5217
27267 7590 04/08/2014
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
ATTENTION: PATENT DOCKETING
ONE CENTURY TOWER, P.O. BOX 1832
NEW HAVEN, CT 06508-1832
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2014 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 JOHN C. BYRNE and SATYENDAR KUMAR
____________________

Appeal 2011-012597
Application 11/392,399
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012597
Application 11/392,399

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “distributed search services
for electronic data archive systems” (Spec., para. [0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of searching index information in a data
archive system, the method comprising:
receiving a request to search a range of the index
information for at least one search term;
distributing different portions of the search request
among a plurality of search engines, each search engine being
responsible for searching the index information for the search
term over a predetermined portion of the range and providing
the results of the search; and
collecting the results from the plurality of search engines.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
January 19, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 28,
2011).
Appeal 2011-012597
Application 11/392,399

3
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Talib (US 2001/0049677 A1, pub. Dec. 6, 2001).

ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Appellants do not present any arguments in response to the rejection
of claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
Anticipation
Appellants argue claims 1-18 as a group (Br. 9-13). We select claim 1
as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Talib fails to
disclose “distributing different portions of the search request among a
plurality of search engines, each search engine being responsible for
searching the index information for the search term over a predetermined
portion of the range. . . .” as recited in claim 1 (see Br. 12-13). Instead, we
agree with, and adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument as
set forth at page 8 of the Answer.
Talib discloses a system and method for enabling efficient searching
and retrieval of information from a document archive (Talib, Abstract).
Talib describes at paragraphs [0160] and [0161], with reference to Figure 13,
that the system includes a hub computer 505 configured to receive user
queries and provide compiled search results. A plurality of spoke
computers 510a – 510n are coupled to hub computer 505, and have local
Appeal 2011-012597
Application 11/392,399

4
memories 510a1-510n1 that store indices used to access documents in the
document archive. A large memory storage (i.e., a respective one of
elements 515a-515n) is coupled to each of the spoke computers, and is used
to store the documents in the document archive. Talib states that in the
preferred embodiment, each of memory storages 515a-515n stores only a
portion of the documents in the document archive, i.e., the data stored in
storages 515a-515n and, therefore, the indices stored in local memories
510a1-510n1 are unique. However, Talib describes that in an alternative
embodiment, spoke computers 510a-510n store identical copies of the
document archive but the indices are parsed among the local memories
(see Talib, para. [0183]).
Talib describes, at paragraphs [0180] through [0185] that upon receipt
of a user query, e.g., in the form of a search term, a taxonomy selection, a
category selection, a sub-category selection, etc., hub computer 50 first
determines whether the response to the query is stored in its own cache
(505d in Fig. 13). If not, a broadcast message, including the user query, is
sent to all spoke computers 510a-510n. Upon receipt of the query, each
spoke computer performs a search of the appropriate index stored in its local
memory using the query from the user, and returns the search results,
determined by its respective indices, to the hub computer. We agree with
the Examiner that Talib thus discloses “distributing different portions of the
search request among a plurality of search engines [i.e., spoke computers
510a-510n], each search engine being responsible for searching the index
information for the search term over a predetermined portion of the range
[i.e., as defined by the indices stored in its local memory],” as recited in
claim 1 (Ans. 5 and 8).
Appeal 2011-012597
Application 11/392,399

5
Appellants argue that, rather than disclosing distributing different
portions of the search request among a plurality of search engines,
e.g., spoke computers 510a – 510n, Talib distributes the entire search request
to the plurality of spoke computers (Br. 12). However, as the Examiner
observes, Talib discloses that a distributed search is performed on the
plurality of spoke computers, with each of the spoke computers performing a
search of the appropriate stored index in its local memory based on the user
query (Ans. 8, citing Talib, paras. [0182], [0184], and [0185]). As such,
each spoke computer is responsible for its distributed portion of the user
query, which meets the language of the claim, under a broad, but reasonable
construction.
Appellants also argue that the system of the present application is
distinguishable from Talib because the claimed system can be used for
performing randomly selected searches by a user, i.e., using Google or other
search engines, while the Talib system can only be used with a pre-identified
and pre-configured set of data (Br. 12-13). That argument is not persuasive
at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. There is
nothing in claim 1 that requires that the method be used for performing
randomly selected searches using Google or other search engines; nor is
there anything that otherwise precludes searches of pre-configured data.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also will sustain the rejection of
claims 2-18, which stand or fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2011-012597
Application 11/392,399

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rvb