Ex Parte Murthy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

11256527 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 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.
11/256,527 10/20/2005 Ravi Murthy 50277-2832 8037
42425 7590 06/01/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
CONYERS, DAWAUNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2012 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 RAVI MURTHY and ERIC SEDLAR
____________________

Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-32 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for managing the
relationships between resources stored in a repository; wherein, when a
client sends a request to a server to store a first resource within a repository,
the server parses the first resource to retrieve relationship data that identifies
a relationship between two or more resources to be stored, or currently
stored, within the repository (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:

in response to a server receiving a request to store a first
resource in a repository:

said server parsing the first resource to retrieve
relationship data from within the first resource, wherein
said relationship data identifies a relationship between
the first resource and a second resource in the repository;

said server determining a type of link to represent
the relationship;

said server storing, within a database, one or more
relationship records that identify said relationship using
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

3
the type of link between said first resource and said
second resource, and

wherein said one or more relationship records are stored
separate from said first resource.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koyi US 5,303,379 Apr. 12, 1994
Kawaguchi US 5,832,527 Nov. 03, 1998
Gladney US 6,044,378 Mar. 28, 2000
Ebbo US 2003/0025728 Al Feb. 06, 2003
Cornelius US 6,684,222 B1 Jan. 27, 2004
Lee US 7,072,896 B2 Jul. 04, 2006
(filed Feb. 14, 2001)

Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Gladney in view of Lee.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 25, 26, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gladney in view of Ebbo and
Cornelius.
Claims 13, 14, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gladney in view of Ebbo, Cornelius, and
Kawaguchi.
Claims 5, 6, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gladney in view of Lee and Kawaguchi.
Claims 7, 8, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gladney in view of Lee and Khoyi.
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

4
Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gladney in view of Ebbo, Cornelius, and Khoyi.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that:
1. the combination of Gladney and Lee teaches or would have
suggested “said server parsing the first resource to retrieve relationship data
from within the first resource, wherein said relationship data identifies a
relationship between the first resource and a second resource in the
repository” (claim 1, emphasis added);
2. the combination of Gladney, Ebbo, and Cornelius teaches or
would have suggested “after said server storing, within a repository, a first
resource and a second resource, receiving a request to store a third resource
in said repository[] in response to said server receiving said request to store a
third resource in said repository: said server parsing the third resource to
retrieve relationship data, wherein said relationship data identifies a
relationship between the first resource and said second resource” (clam 9,
emphasis added); and
3. the combination of Gladney, Lee, and Kawaguchi teaches or
would have suggested “upon determining that said at least one resource, in
said repository, has a first type of link to said second resource, denying said
request to delete said second resource from said repository” (claim 6,
emphasis added).

Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Gladney
1. Gladney discloses a system and method for determining a
relationship between first and second data elements by using a relationship
element; wherein, the method maintains relationships between existing
documents stored in various electronic libraries (Abstract).
2. The relationship is determined by reading the relationship
element in response to a request, and the second element is identified based
on information read from the relationship element (id.).
Lee
3. Lee discloses a system and a method for generating a schema
for a relational database corresponding to a document having a document-
type definition and data complying with the document-type definition
including at least one or more of the following content particles: elements,
attributes of elements, and nesting relationships between elements
(Abstract).
4. An XML document is parsed for the XML tree structure
composed of nodes 302 (representing elements) and edges 304 (representing
nesting relationships between elements) (col. 28, ll. 38-45).
Ebbo
5. Ebbo discloses parsing a resource to separate the resource into
logical elements and identify relationships between the logical elements
(claim 16).
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

6
Cornelius
6. Cornelius discloses the data processing system 12 determines
relationships or affiliations between data attributes and each corresponding
data element; wherein, the data attributes include hierarchical relationship
data (e.g., node identifier and parent node identifier) for defining a
hierarchical data structure between different data elements (col. 7, ll. 16-22).
Kawaguchi
7. Kawaguchi discloses a method for file deletion; wherein, if the
file name is found in the directory (step S205), the system deletes the
directory entry from the parent directory (step S206) (Figs. 4A and 4B; col.
7, l. 56-col. 8, l. 8). The system retrieves the file management table entry
corresponding to the deleted file and updates the hard link data (step S207)
(Fig. 4B; col. 8, ll. 8-14). The system further determines whether or not the
file to be deleted is a symbolic link; wherein, if it is a symbolic link the data
storage area corresponding to the file is released (step S210 and S211) (Fig.
4B; col. 8, ll. 14-17).
8. Each file system is composed of a file system manager, a file
management table, and a data storage area; wherein, the data storage area
stores the contents of the files (col. 4, ll. 33-42).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, and 20
As to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that even though the
“Examiner considers the parsed XML document to be equivalent to the
claimed first resource and the nodes found when parsing the document as the
claimed second resource,” “Lee describes relationships (edges) among
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

7
elements (second resources), not between a first resource (the parsed
document) and a second resource (elements found in the document)” and
“the second resource does not exist until it is parsed from the document and
stored into the database” (App. Br. 6).
However, the Examiner finds that “[t]he edges (element 304, e.g.,
relationship data) correspond to the nesting relationship between the XML
document (e.g., first resource) and the Nodes /elements (e.g., second
resource) within the XML documents” (Ans. 27).
Gladney discloses a system and method for determining a relationship
between first and second data elements by using a relationship element;
wherein, the method maintains relationships between existing documents
stored in various electronic libraries (FF 1). The relationship is determined
by reading the relationship element in response to a request, and the second
element is identified based on information read from the relationship
element (FF 2).
In addition, Lee discloses a system and a method for generating a
schema for a relational database corresponding to a document (FF 3);
wherein, an XML document is parsed for the XML tree structure composed
of nodes and edges (FF 4). The nodes represent elements and the edges
represent nesting relationships between elements (FF 4).
Though the Examiner finds that Lee discloses “[t]he edges (element
304, e.g., relationship data) correspond to the nesting relationship between
the XML document (e.g., first resource) and the Nodes/elements (e.g.,
second resource) within the XML documents” (Ans. 27), we agree with
Appellants that Lee does not disclose parsing the first resource (XML
document) to retrieve relationship data (edges) from within the first
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

8
resource, wherein said relationship data (edges) identifies a relationship
between the first resource (XML document) and a second resource (node);
rather, Lee discloses parsing the XML document to retrieve relationship data
for elements (nodes) within the XML tree structure (FF 4).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gladney in view of
Lee; and claims 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, and 20 depending from claim 1 which
have been grouped therewith.
Claims 9-12 and 25-28
As to independent claim 9, Appellants similarly argue that “neither
Gladney nor Ebbo disclose wherein said relationship data identifies a
relationship between the first resource and said second resource” (App. Br.
6-7).
However, the Examiner finds that “Ebbo discloses in response to said
server receiving said request to store a third resource in said repository: said
server parsing the third resource to retrieve relationship data” (Ans. 33).
The Examiner also finds that “Cornelius discloses wherein said relationship
data identifies a relationship between the first resource and said second
resource” (id.).
As noted supra, Gladney discloses a system and method for
determining a relationship between first and second data elements by using a
relationship element (FF 1).
In addition, Ebbo discloses parsing a resource to separate the resource
into logical elements and identify relationships between the logical elements
within the resource (FF 5).
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

9
Furthermore, Cornelius discloses the data processing system
determines relationships or affiliations between data attributes and each
corresponding data element; wherein, the data attributes define the
hierarchical relationship between different data elements (FF 6).
Though the Examiner finds that “Cornelius discloses wherein said
relationship data identifies a relationship between the first resource and said
second resource” (Ans. 33), we agree with Appellants that the combined
teachings of Gladney, Ebbo, and Cornelius does not disclose parsing the first
resource to retrieve relationship data from within the first resource, wherein
said relationship data identifies a relationship between the first resource and
a second resource; rather, Ebbo discloses parsing the resource to retrieve
relationship data for elements within the resource (FF 5), and Cornelius
discloses determining relationships of data elements within the resource (FF
6).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gladney in view of
Ebbo and Cornelius; and claims 10-12 and 25-28 depending from claim 9
which have been grouped therewith.
Claims 5, 6, 21, and 22
As to claim 6, Appellants contend that “Kawaguchi does not describe,
teach, or suggest denying a request to delete a resource much less denying a
deletion request based on the link type” (App. Br. 8).
However, the Examiner finds that Kawaguchi “clearly show[s] the
step of denying a deletion of a resource based on a link type; and upon
determining that said at least one resource, in said repository, does not have
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

10
a first type of link to said second resource, granting said request to delete
said second resource from said repository” (Ans. 34).
Kawaguchi discloses a method for file deletion; wherein, (1) if the file
name is found in the directory, the system deletes the directory entry from
the parent directory or (2) if the file is a symbolic link, the system releases
the data storage area corresponding to the link (FF 7); wherein, the data
storage area holds the contents of the file (FF 8).
Although the Examiner finds that Kawaguchi “clearly show[s] the
step of carrying out a deletion of resource based on a link type” (Ans. 34),
we find that Kawaguchi does not teach denying a request to delete a file if it
has a link; rather, Kawaguchi deletes the file first and then releases the
storage area for the symbolic link (which represents deleting the link) (FF 7
and 8).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gladney in view of
Lee and Kawaguchi; and claims 5, 21, and 22, depending from claim 1,
which have been grouped therewith.
Claims 7, 8, 13-16, 23, 24, 29, and 30-32
Appellants argue that the dependent claims are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to parent claims 1
and 9 (App. Br. 9).
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 9 from
which claims 7, 8, 13-16, 23, 24, and 29-32 respectively depend. We
therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13, 14, 29, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gladney in further view of Ebbo, Cornelius, and
Kawaguchi; of claims 7, 8, 23, and 24 over Gladney in further view of Lee
Appeal 2010-003404
Application 11/256,527

11
and Khoyi; and of claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 over Gladney in further view of
Ebbo, Cornelius, and Khoyi, for the same reasons expressed with respect to
the rejection of parent claims 1 and 9, supra.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED

peb