Ex Parte Krishnaprasad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2013

11100083 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2013)

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.
11/100,083 04/05/2005 Muralidhar Krishnaprasad 50277-2614 2898
42425 7590 05/14/2013
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAMWONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
CHEMPAKASERIL, ANN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2013 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 MURALIDHAR KRISHNAPRASAD, ZHEN HUA LIU,
VIKAS ARORA, JAMES W. WARNER, and ANAND MANIKUTTY
____________

Appeal 2010-006759
Application 11/100,083
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request that we reconsider our decision of February 27,
2013 (“Op.”), where we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and
6-9, and we reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5 and 10-15. We
have reconsidered our decision in light of Appellants’ arguments in the
Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision for the
following reasons.

Appeal 2010-006759
Application 11/100,083

2
Claim 1
As an initial procedural matter, we have not considered Appellants’
Exhibit A included in their Request because Exhibit A was not evidence
previously relied on in Appellants’ Brief or Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1) (“Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and
evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are
not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs
(a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.”) (emphasis added).
Appellants contend (Req. 2) that we erred in concluding “the XML
record (i.e., serialized image) stores a node identifier (i.e., node slot entry)
that refers to nodes represented in the XML record or another XML record”
(Op. 5). See generally Req. 2-5. Appellants argue that the conclusion
ignores the claim limitation “within each serialized image generated for each
XML value of said plurality of XML values, storing a node identifier that
uniquely identifies said at least one node relative to any other node in the
plurality of XML values,” as recited in claim 1. Req. 2.
Appellants maintain that Van der Linden’s XID is not the recited node
identifier because the XID only identifies nodes outside of the XML record
(Req. 3-4) and that Van der Linden’s offset in the node slot entries point to
nodes within the XML record (Req. 4). In so doing, Appellants seem to
acknowledge that Van der Linden uses, in a node slot entry, an XID to
identify a node, when the node referenced by the node slot entry is in
another XML record, and an offset to identify a node, when the node
referenced by the node slot entry is in the same XML record. Req. 4. This
is congruent with the basis of our conclusion. As we stated:
Referring to Figures 5 and 7A, Van der Linden explains that a
node slot entry 507b in a node slot array 506 can point to a
Appeal 2010-006759
Application 11/100,083

3
node 508b that resides within the same XML record 500a as
contains the node slot array 506 or can point to a node 508c that
resides in a different XML record 500b. ¶ 0034; Figs. 5, 7A.
Thus, based on this functionality, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 11) that the XML record (i.e., serialized image) stores a
node identifier (i.e., node slot entry) that refers to nodes
represented in the XML record or another XML record. This
discloses storing, within an XML record, a node identifier that
uniquely identifies at least one node in the XML record relative
to other nodes in the XML documents.
Op. 5.
Appellants arguments unduly focus on the particular, individual
mechanisms that Van der Linden describes for using node slot entries to
uniquely identify a node in any XML record, and ignore Van der Linden’s
description of using node slot entries to identify either (i) a node that resides
within the same XML record as the node slot array or (ii) a node that resides
in a different XML record than the node slot array in which the node slot
entry exists. Req. 2-5; see ¶ 0034; Figs. 5, 7A. These arguments are
unavailing.
Appellants further contend that we did not address their Reply Brief
argument that “Van der Linden mentions that XIDs in the node slot entries
of one XML record point to a node in another XML record.” Req. 3 (citing
Reply Br. 11 (citing Van der Linden ¶ 0034)). In fact, we noted:
“Appellants’ arguments that (i) node slot entries that point to a node in
another XML record (Reply Br. 11) . . . are unavailing” for the same reasons
we noted above. Op. 6.
We therefore maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-006759
Application 11/100,083

4
Claim 16
Appellants assert that:
In the Decision on Appeal (pg. 9), the Honorable Board
clearly erroneously concluded that Van der Linden has
“XML documents stored in their native form” that “point[]
to” “second record 500b,” let alone that “XML record 500”
also points to “second record 500b.” Such a conclusion is
not supported by any evidence of record.
Req. 5 (emphasis in original). Such a conclusion does not appear in the
Opinion. See generally Op. 9-10. Rather, we noted the Examiner’s position
and then addressed why Appellants’ arguments did not persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s position. Op. 9-10. We noted, in particular, that:
“Appellants, however, do not squarely address – much less persuasively
rebut – the Examiner’s finding that Van der Linden’s second record 500b is
the in-memory representation that is pointed to by the XML documents
stored in their native form and by XML record 500.” Op. 9-10.
In their Request, Appellants apparently have assembled a purported
conclusion by replacing the Examiner’s mapping of Van der Linden’s prior
art elements to the terms recited by claim 16. As we noted:
While not a model of clarity, the rejection equates Van der
Linden’s (1) second record 500b with the in-memory
representation, (2) stored XML documents in their native
format with the recited first serialized image, and (3) XML
record 500 with the second serialized image.
Op. 9 (citing Ans. 6 (citing ¶¶ 0032-36)). Claim 16, annotated with the
Examiner’s mapping, reads as follows:
16. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising the
steps of:
generating an in-memory representation [second record 500b]
of an XML value in the memory of a computer;
generating a first serialized image [stored XML documents in
Appeal 2010-006759
Application 11/100,083

5
their native format] of the XML value that contains a first pointer to
the in-memory representation [second record 500b]; and
generating a second serialized image [XML record 500] of the
XML value that contains a second pointer to the in-memory
representation [second record 500b] of the XML value.
Appellants then argue, in an effort to address why this purported
conclusion is erroneous, that Van der Linden does not disclose the claim
limitations. Req. 5- 7. Many of these arguments, however, are presented for
the first time in this Request. Compare Req. 5-7 with App. Br. 18-19; Reply
Br. 26-28. A Request for Rehearing is not the time to present new
arguments that could have been presented earlier. As we noted previously,
“[a]rguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not
previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in
the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)
of this section,” which exceptions do not apply here. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1).
Appellants have not identified a point of law or fact which was
overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Req. 5-7. We therefore
maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we have granted Appellants’ request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny the request with
respect to making any changes therein.

Appeal 2010-006759
Application 11/100,083

6
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).
REHEARING DENIED
rwk