Ex Parte Graefe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2016

13477789 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/477,789 05/22/2012 Goetz Graefe
56436 7590 10/05/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82850130 9341
EXAMINER
FLEURANTIN, JEAN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOETZ GRAEFE, HARUMI KUNO, and HIDEAKI KIMURA
Appeal2015-006471
Application 13/477,789
Technology Center 2100
Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 8-13, and 16-18. 1 The Examiner objects to claims 2
and 3 in combination with claim 1, and claims 4--7, 14, 15, 19, and 20, as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but as allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. (Final Act. 9.) We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-006471
Application 13/477,789
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
implementing a tree data structure by creating a parent and child relationship
between a first node and a second node at the same hierarchical level of the
tree data structure. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of implementing a tree data structure
compnsmg:
with a processor:
in the data tree structure comprising a number nodes,
creating a parent and child relationship between a first node and
a second node, in which the first node and second node are at
the same hierarchical level of the tree data structure, the first
node being a foster parent node and the second node being a
foster child node; and
maintaining only one incoming pointer for each of the
nodes in the tree data structure at all times;
in \~1hich the parent and child relationship created
between the first node and the second node does not involve a
node in a higher hierarchical level of the tree data structure.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2004/0249781 Al, pub.
Dec. 9, 2004) and Plasek et al. (US 7,363,284 Bl, issued Apr. 22, 2008).
(Final Act. 5-8.)
2
Appeal2015-006471
Application 13/477,789
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issues:2
First Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Anderson and Plasek teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitation, "creating a parent and child relationship between a first node and
a second node, in which the first node and second node are at the same
hierarchical level of the tree data structure." (App. Br. 10-16.)
Second Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Anderson and Plasek teaches or suggests the independent claim 8
limitation, "in which the tree data structure comprises a pointer directed to a
local overflow node from a node at the same hierarchical level as the local
overflow node." (App. Br. 17-19.)
Third Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Anderson and Plasek teaches or suggests the independent claim 10
limitation, "copy a foster key within the foster parent node as a separator key
within the foster child node." (App. Br. 19-21.)
ANALYSIS
First Issue
For the claim 1 limitation, "creating a parent and child relationship
between a first node and a second node, in which the first node and second
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 11, 2014); the Reply
Brief (filed Jun. 19, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 12, 2014);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Apr. 27, 2015) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal2015-006471
Application 13/477,789
node are at the same hierarchical level of the tree data structure," the
Examiner stated Anderson does not explicitly disclose this requirement, and
relies on the disclosure in Plasek of creating leaf nodes and non-leaf nodes at
the same hierarchical level. (Final Act. 6; Plasek Fig. 3, col. 3, 11. 3-11, col.
4, 11. 23-25, col. 5, 11. 17-23, col. 9, 11. 6-22.)
Appellants argue Plasek does not disclose a parent/child relationship
between nodes at the same hierarchical level, as required by claim 1, but
rather discloses the prior art parent/node relationships, in which the parent is
at a higher level than the child. (App. Br. 11-16.) We agree with
Appellants. The Examiner has not met the prima facie burden of explaining
how the cited references, whether alone or in combination, teach or suggest
this limitation. Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to
find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1.
Second Issue
For the claim 8 requirement, "in which the tree data structure
comprises a pointer directed to a local overflow node from a node at the
same hierarchical level as the local overflow node," the Examiner relies on
the same disclosures in Plasek discussed above. (Final Act. 6-7.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because, just as the references fail to
teach or suggest a parent/ child relationship between nodes at the same
hierarchical level, they also fail to teach or suggest the required pointer
relationship at the same hierarchical level. (App. Br. 18-19.) We agree with
Appellants, and do not sustain this rejection.
Third Issue
Appellants correctly point out that the Examiner does not address the
claim 10 limitation, "copy a foster key within the foster parent node as a
4
Appeal2015-006471
Application 13/477,789
separator key within the foster child node." (App. Br. 21; see Final Act. 7;
Ans. 7-8.) Therefore, the Examiner has failed to meet the prima facie
burden required to support this rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1, 8 and 10. We also do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 9, 11-13, and 16-18, which claims depend
from claims 1, 8, or 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 8-13, and 16-18.
REVERSED
5