Ex Parte Mori et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

11300551 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

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.
11/300,551 12/14/2005 Timothy T. Mori NG(MS)7264-1 4251
26294 7590 05/29/2012
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
FOLLANSBEE, JOHN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TIMOTHY T. MORI,
RICHARD S. BREHOVE, and
TIMOTHY A. YOKOTE
____________________

Appeal 2010-0013961
Application 11/300,551
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Northrop Grumman, Corp. (App. Br. 3.)

Appeal 2010-001396
Application 11/300,551

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-24, and 26-30. Claims 6, 19, and 25 have
been canceled. (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method for expediting the transfer of a file over
a network. In particular, upon determining that the file to be transferred
exceeds a predetermined size, the file is divided into a plurality of blocks
including a control block containing information for rebuilding the file from
the plurality of blocks. The blocks are subsequently transferred and re-
assembled as per the instructions contained in the control block. (Spec.,
¶[0029]-[0032].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:

1. A method of transferring a file over a network
comprising:

dividing a file into a plurality of blocks;

transferring a first one of said plurality of blocks from a first entity
and across said network toward a second entity;

transferring a second one of said plurality of blocks from said first
entity and across said network toward said second entity while said first one
of said plurality of blocks is being transferred across said network to said
second entity; and

Appeal 2010-001396
Application 11/300,551

3
repeating said transferring of a subsequent one of said plurality of
blocks until all of said plurality of blocks have been transferred, wherein at
least one of said plurality of blocks comprises an intercontrol block that
contains information for rebuilding the file from said plurality of blocks, the
information for rebuilding the file from the plurality of blocks being
contained above a transport layer in the
intercontrol block.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:

Carlmel 6,389,473 B1 May 14, 2002
Callway 2008/0001972 A1 Jan. 3, 2008

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-24, and 26-30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Carmel and Callway.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 8-17.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the
combination of Carmel and Callway because none of the cited references
teaches or suggests a control block containing information for rebuilding a
file from a plurality of transferred blocks, as recited the claim. In particular,
Appeal 2010-001396
Application 11/300,551

4
Appellants argue that Callway does not cure the admitted deficiencies of
Carmel. That is, Callway’s control blocks contain information for scaling
received data streams, and not for rebuilding a file from a plurality of
transferred blocks. (App. Br. 10-12, Reply Br. 2-8.) In response, the
Examiner finds that Callway’s disclosure of control blocks for scaling and
merging received data streams teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 8.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. In particular, Callway
discloses a plurality of control blocks that serve to scale video data and
graphics data before they are merged into a single display. (¶[0037], Fig. 3.)
We agree with Appellants that while Callway’s control blocks serve to
operate on transferred data streams, they are not part of a transferred file that
was partitioned, nor do they contain any information for rebuilding the file
from partitioned blocks thereof as required by the claim. Consequently, we
agree with Appellants that Callway does not cure the noted deficiencies of
Carmen. Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, we need not address
Appellants’ other arguments.
Because claims 2-5, 7-18, 20-24, and 26-30 also recite the disputed
limitations discussed above, and that none of the secondary references cure
the noted deficiencies, Appellants have also shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2010-001396
Application 11/300,551

5
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-24, and
26-30as set forth above.
REVERSED

tkl