Ex Parte Duloutre et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2012

10494089 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SYLVAIN DULOUTRE and JEROME ARNOU
________________

Appeal 2009-014360
Application 10/494,089
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014360
Application 10/494,089

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7 – 13, 16, 17, 19 – 23, 29, and 30. Claims 2, 5, 6,
14, 15, 18, and 24 – 28 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention generally relates to distributed computer systems (Spec.
p. 1, l. 6). Independent claim 1 is directed to a directory server component,
for use with a request query adapted to receive an input request from a client
and to retrieve corresponding result data from a database. Independent claim
13 is directed to a method of processing requests in a directory server.
Exemplary Claim
1. A directory server component, for use with a request query
adapted to receive an input request from a client and to retrieve
corresponding result data from a database, the directory server
component comprising:
a cache manager configured to store sets of data, each set of
data comprising request identifying data that defines a plurality
of input requests and corresponding result data;
a request comparator configured to receive the input request
and compare the input request to the request identifying data to
obtain a comparison result; and
a request manager configured to:
receive the comparison result from the request
comparator;
decide whether result data in the sets of data is used to
respond to the input request by determining, using the
Appeal 2009-014360
Application 10/494,089

3
comparison result, whether the cache manager contains
results that match the input request,
wherein the cache manager contains results that match
the input request when the comparison result identifies
one of the plurality of input requests and
corresponding result data that matches the input request;
and
partially execute the input request to retrieve a portion of
the results that are not obtained from result data in the
sets of data stored in the cache manager.
(Emphasis added).
Evidence and Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 9 – 13, and 21 – 23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Getchius (US
6,519,592 B1) and Teramoto (US 2001/0032299 A1) (Ans. 3 – 8).
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, 29, and 30 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Getchius, Teramoto, and Tripp (US 6,983,322 B1) (Ans. 8 – 12).
ISSUE
The Examiner relies on Getchius to teach or suggest the recitation of
“partially execut[ing] the input request to retrieve a portion of the results that
are not obtained from result data in the sets of data stored in the cache
manager” (Ans. 4). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because
Getchius’ disclosure of “[s]earching caches/file systems in a particular order
does not, in any way, imply that the original search query is partially
executed or that result data is partially obtained from some or all of the
caches/file systems searched” (App Br. 9), and “Getchius merely discloses
Appeal 2009-014360
Application 10/494,089

4
satisfying a query by retrieving a subset of cached data resulting from an
earlier query” (Reply Br. 4).
Thus, we are presented with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Getchius teaches or suggests
partially executing an input request to retrieve a portion of the results that
are not obtained from result data in the sets of data stored in a cache
manager, as required by claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that claim 1, with respect to the “partially
execute” recitation, “requires both (i) satisfying a first portion of an input
request from cached data, and (ii) satisfying a remaining portion of the input
request by executing only the remaining portion of the input request” (see
App. Br. 8 – 9) (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants’ claim
construction is too narrow.
Appellants cite to two different locations in the Specification as
providing support for the “partially execute” recitation. Appellants cite
(App. Br. 8) to paragraph 14 of the published specification, which discloses
the step of “at least partially executing the request, to retrieve those of the
results that are not obtained from result data in said sets of data” (Spec. p. 2,
ll. 11 – 12) (emphasis added). Appellants also cite (App. Br. 6) to several
pages of the Specification, which include the following disclosure:
[A]ssuming the input request exactly matches request
identifying data (a “cached request”), the request
manager 410 will simply return the result data (“cached
results”) corresponding to these request identifying data.
. . . In the opposite, when comparator 400 finds no match
in the cache manager 240, then the request manager 410
will send the input request to the request query 420,
Appeal 2009-014360
Application 10/494,089

5
which directly or indirectly interrogates the data base(s),
so as to retrieve the results corresponding to the request,
as known.
(Spec. p. 12, ll. 14 – 22) (emphasis added).
The Specification discloses, and claim 1 does not explicitly preclude,
the case where the cached results does not contain results with respect to the
input request and that the request manager executes the entire input request
to produce all of the results. As such, we conclude that the broadest
reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the “partially
execute” recitation includes any execution of the whole input request to
retrieve the entirety or all the results, none of which are obtained from result
data in the sets of data stored in the cache manager.
The Examiner relies on Getchius’ disclosure at column 8, lines 24 –
31 to teach or suggest the “partially execute” recitation (Ans. 4). We agree
with the Examiner because Getchius discloses (1) determining whether an
HTML (hypertext markup language) page to be displayed is located in a
page cache and (2) if the HTML page is not in the page cache, constructing
the HTML page (Getchius col. 8, ll. 27 – 30). That is, we find that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Getchius’ disclosure of
constructing the HTML page teaches or suggests executing a request for the
HTML page to be displayed by retrieving the entire HTML page from
another source, rather than obtaining it from the HTML pages stored in the
page cache. Therefore, consistent with our claim construction supra, we find
that Getchius teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Getchius and
Teramoto.
Appeal 2009-014360
Application 10/494,089

6
Appellants provide no additional arguments with respect to
independent claim 13 or dependent claims 9 – 12 and 21 – 23. Appellants
also provide no additional arguments with respect to dependent claims 3, 4,
7, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, 29, and 30, except to submit that Tripp fails to cure
deficiencies in the collective teachings and suggestions of Getchius and
Teramoto (App. Br. 10 – 11). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed
above, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3, 4, 7 – 13,
16, 17, 19 – 23, 29, and 30 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7 – 13, 16,
17, 19 – 23, 29, and 30.
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

ELD