Ex Parte Harvey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2017

12351300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/351,300 01/09/2009 Richard H. Harvey 063170.9107 8554
106095 7590 09/13/2017
Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2017 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):
PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD H. HARVEY, JUSTIN J. McDONALD, and
RONALD W. RAMSAY
Appeal 2017-001455
Application 12/351,300
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 through 8, 10, 11, 13 through 16, and 18 through
22.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a directory information system. Abstract.
The storing of objects includes performing a mathematic operation on one of
the characteristics of the object and arranging the object in the directory
information structure based in part on the result of the mathematical
operation. Id. Claim 10 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced
below:
Appeal 2017-001455
Application 12/351,300
10. A method of searching and updating a directory
information system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a directory server, a request from a client to
perform an operation on a base object within the directory
information system, the directory information system comprising
a plurality of objects distributed among a plurality of partitions,
each partition of the plurality of partitions subordinate to a parent
node of the plurality of parent nodes, the request comprising a
label identifying the name of the base object with the partitions
being invisible to the client and at least one or more one or more
attribute values of the base object selected from the group
consisting of:
a globally unique identifier;
an identifier unique with respect to a plurality of sibling
directory objects of the plurality of directory objects, the plurality
of sibling directory objects having a parent in common; and
an email address;
applying, by the directory server, a mathematical
operation to the name of the base object to result in a positive
integer outcome;
determining, by the directory server, that a first partition
of the plurality of partitions is associated with the positive integer
outcome calculated, at least in part, by applying the mathematical
operation to the name of the base object; and
routing, by the directory server, the operation to the first
partition without client interaction.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hahn (US 2002/0152293 Al;
publ. Oct. 17, 2002), Duffy (US 2009/0144346 Al; publ. June 4, 2009), and
Vermeulen (US 2007/0156842 Al; publ. July 5, 2007). Final Act. 2—13.1
1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 19,
2016 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed October 25, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 25, 2016 (“Answer”), and the Final
Office Action mailed September 15, 2015 (“Final Act”).
2
Appeal 2017-001455
Application 12/351,300
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 14 through 16, and 18 through 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hahn, Duffy,
Vermeulen, and Jorgensen (US 2005/0262343 Al; publ. Nov. 24, 2005).
Final Act. 13—14.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 10 and 13 is in
error as the combination of Hahn, Duffy, and Vermeulen does not teach the
claimed feature of receiving a request from a client to perform an operation
on a base object, the request comprising a label identifying the name of the
base object with the partitions being invisible to the client. App. Br. 13—16.
Further, Appellants argue the combination of the references does not teach
the label identifying the name of the base object and one or attributes of a
list of attributes. App. Br. 16—17.
We are persuaded of error by these arguments. The Examiner finds
that Hahn teaches receiving a name of a table to be searched and a key prefix
value and that the key can identify a metadata partition number. Answer 5—
7 (citing Hahn paras. 51—53, 65—68). Further, the Examiner finds that if the
metadata partition is not part of the table, an algorithm is applied to ascertain
the partition number. Id. (citing Fig. 2G). Thus, the Examiner finds Hahn
teaches the disputed limitations of claim 10 and 13. We disagree with the
Examiner as we find insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the request is
invisible to the client, or that the request contains both a label and an
attribute value as claimed. The Appellants assert and we concur, that the
key field value in the DSD table, which is provided by the client query,
corresponds to the partition number. See App. Br 14 (citing Hahn para. 48),
3
Appeal 2017-001455
Application 12/351,300
see also Hahn para. 5. The Examiner has not adequately identified how the
term invisible is being interpreted, and it would appear that Hahn teaches
that the partition is visible to the client as the client is identifying the
partition by a key value. Thus, we find the Examiner has not demonstrated
that Hahn teaches the partition is invisible to the client as claimed. Further,
we have reviewed the portions of Hahn cited by the Examiner and do not
find that the client provides both the key number and the name of the table to
be searched. As such, we find the Examiner has not demonstrated the
request from the client contains two pieces of data (i.e., the label and
attribute value) as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 10 and 13 and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7,
and 11 similarly rejected.
The Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Jorgensen make up
for the deficiency noted above in the rejection of independent claims 10 and
13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 14
through 16, and 18 through 22 for the same reasons as claims 10 and 13.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 4, 6 through 8, 10,
11,13 through 16 and 18 through 22 is reversed.
REVERSED
4