Ex Parte Helfman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

10498409 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

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.
10/498,409 12/06/2004 Nadav Binyamin Helfman 2005P00327WOUS
(S20.055)
6162
52025 7590 09/10/2013
SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
DAFTUAR, SAKET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2013 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 NADAV BINYAMIN HELFMAN
____________

Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, JILL D. HILL, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 14-27. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-13 and 28-33 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 14, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
14. A method for providing network services over a
data communication network between a service producer host
and a service consumer host that are at remote locations relative
to each other, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a producer reflector in a first computer
implemented local area network that includes the service
consumer host to serve as an interface for representing one or
more remotely located service producer hosts to service
consumer hosts that are members of the first computer
implemented local area network;
providing a consumer reflector in a second computer
implemented local area network that includes the service
producer host to serve as an interface for representing one or
more remotely located service consumer hosts to service
producer hosts that are members of the second computer
implemented local area network;
establishing a session between a service producer host
and the service consumer host where the establishment of the
session comprises the steps of:
a. communicating via the producer reflector and
consumer reflector by the service consumer host to
initiate a session with the service producer host;
b. loading relative context objects by the producer
reflector and the consumer reflector independently;
wherein the relevant context objects loaded serve
to create a contextual based data structure for performing
a universal compression process on transmissions
between said producer reflector and said consumer
reflector; and wherein the relevant context objects to be
used are determined by the identity of the service
consumer host, the identity of the service producer host
and the type of session required to be established;
c. validating that the producer reflector and the
consumer reflector that loaded the relevant context
objects loaded identical objects by sending a
Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409

3
confirmation request by one of the producer reflector or
consumer reflector to the other;
d. acknowledging that the loaded context objects
are identical;
e. creating at both remote locations a hyper-context
data structure stored in a computer storage device from
the identical loaded context objects to serve as the
contextual based data structure for performing universal
compression on transmissions between the producer
reflector and the consumer reflector;
after establishing the session, transmitting messages
between the service consumer host and the service producer
host by transmitting them through the producer reflector and the
consumer reflector using the following method:
encoding, using a processor module, messages for
transmission between said producer reflector and said
consumer reflector by performing pattern matching
between the content of the messages and the hyper-
context data structure;
analyzing the content of the transmitted message to
identify redundancy items that can be used to improve
the universal compression and storing the redundancy
items in one of the context objects;
transmitting the encoded content from one of the
producer reflector device or the consumer reflector to the
other;
decoding the messages received by one of the
producer reflector or consumer reflector from the other
by extracting the received encoded content via the
utilization of the hyper-context data structure;
updating appearance counters to identify the
redundancy items as identified by the one of the producer
reflector or consumer reflector;
storing the redundancy items in one or more of the
context objects;
passing on the decoded messages over the first
computer implemented local area network or the second
computer implemented local area network at the one of
the producer reflector or the consumer reflector to the
Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409

4
service producer host or service consumer host
respectively.

REJECTIONS1
Claims 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Reed (US 5,862,325; iss. Jan. 19, 1999).
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Reed and Leporini (US 2003/0110382 A1; pub. Jun. 12, 2003).2
ANALYSIS
Claims 14-22 as anticipated by Reed
Appellant argues claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22 as a group and
separately argues claims 16 and 19. See App. Br. 11-14. We select claim 14
as representative of the group and separately address Appellant’s arguments
for claims 16 and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 15,
17, 18, and 20-22 stand or fall with claim 14.
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22
Appellant argues that Reed discloses a consumer computer 2 and a
provider computer 1 that communicate directly or through a server computer
32 and does not teach a consumer reflector in the same LAN as a producer
host or a producer reflector in the same LAN as a consumer host. App. Br.
12. Appellant also argues that the Abstract and column 1, lines 15-42 of
Reed provide a generic description of networks and do not disclose a System
ID Server/Distribution Server arrangement. Id. These arguments do not

1 The rejection of claims 14-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter was withdrawn. Ans. 3.
2 This rejection states that claims 23-27 are rejected as being unpatentable
over Leporini but the body of the rejection explains how Reed and Leporini
render obvious this claimed subject matter. Ans. 10-12; see App. Br. 14.
Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409

5
address the Examiner’s findings that Reed discloses consumer and producer
reflectors in Figures 1, 5, 21, and 25 and accompanying disclosure in Reed’s
specification, including a System ID Server/Distribution Server 42 in Figure
5. Ans. 4-7, 13-23. For example, Appellant has not explained why push or
pull methods that reflect objects and documents of a provider and consumer
do not provide producer and consumer reflectors on consumer and provider
networks as claimed. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(approving of the Board’s practice, as set forth in Ex Parte Frye, of requiring
applicants to identify error in an Examiner’s rejections); Ex Parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (discussing the Board’s practice
of reviewing rejections for error based upon issues identified by appellants
and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon).
Appellant also argues that Reed does not disclose a producer reflector
and a consumer reflector that load relevant context objects independently,
send a confirmation request that they are identical, or acknowledge that the
loaded context objects are identical, wherein redundancy items are stored in
context objects, and nothing quoted by the Examiner at pages 4-5 of the
Final Office Action discloses these elements. App. Br. 12-13. These
conclusory arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings
at pages 5-7 and 23-25 of the Answer that Reed discloses these features.
We sustain the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22.
Claim 16
Appellant argues that claim 16 relates to an offline learning process
for “transferring the redundancy items from the context objects of the
current session object to hyper-context data structure,” “performing a search
on the content selected to be recorded,” “updating or creating redundancy
Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409

6
items,” “updating the timing counters,” and “determining the location of the
redundancy items in the hyper-context structure” and the portions of Reed
cited in the Final Office Action have nothing to do with an offline learning
process. App. Br. 13. This argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings that Reed discloses features of claim 16 as set forth at
page 8 of the Answer. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive argument in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements are not
found in the prior art). We sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Claim 19
Appellant argues that claim 19 recites that “the hyper-context data
structure is accomplished by generating a collection of data-blocks where
each block contains a chained content of redundancy items” and the portions
of Reed cited in the Final Office Action use the word “chain” in connection
with forwarding messages but not with chained redundancy items. App. Br.
13-14. This argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings that Reed discloses these features as set forth at pages 9 and 22-23
of the Answer where Reed discloses chaining of communications objects as
a means of distributing and updating the objects over a local area network to
create copies of the object. See also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1356-57. We sustain
the rejection of claim 19.
Claims 23-27 as unpatentable over Reed and Leporini
Appellant argues claims 23-27 as a group. App. Br. 14. We select
claim 23 as representative. Claims 24-27 stand or fall with claim 23.
Appellant argues that Leporini does not remedy the deficiency of Reed as to
Appeal 2011-004875
Application 10/498,409

7
claim 14. App. Br. 14. This argument is not persuasive as we sustain the
rejection of claim 14 as anticipated by Reed.
Appellant also argues that claim 14 is directed to a service producer
and a service consumer and Leporini discloses a digital television system
content protection system, not service level management. Id. Appellant
further argues that the Examiner’s motivation to combine Reed and Leporini
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. These conclusory
arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s detailed findings
that Leporini teaches service level management as claimed and that it would
have been obvious to combine the teachings of Reed and Leporini to provide
multiple viewers with the ability to filter a broadcast with a specific action
just as a message server provides different types of filters to parse different
types of data for optimum multimedia related network services. Ans. 10-12;
see In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. We sustain the rejection of claims 23-27.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 14-27.
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

mls