Ex Parte Ougarov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 7, 2012

11035774 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 7, 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.
11/035,774 01/14/2005 Andrei V. Ougarov 2004P18756US (S06.054) 3950
28062 7590 09/07/2012
BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2012 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 ANDREI V. OUGAROV
and PAUL D. CARMICHAEL
_____________

Appeal 2010-002456
Application 11/035,774
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESPANDE, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002456
Application 11/035,774

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 14, and 16 through 29.
We reverse.

INVENTION
The invention is directed a method of updating a data structure based
upon two parent data structures. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A method to update a data structure based on a plurality
of parent data structures, at least one of the plurality of parent
data structures associated with point data, the method
comprising:
receiving a notification to update from one of the
plurality of parent data structures;
in response to the notification and prior to updating the
data structure, determining that one or more other ones of the
plurality of parent data structures is updating;
prior to updating the data structure, determining if a
notification to update has been received from each of the one or
more other ones of the plurality of parent data structures; and
updating the data structure based on data of the one or
more of the plurality of parent data structures only if a
notification to update has been received from each of the one or
more other ones of the plurality of parent data structures.

REFERENCES
Gudmundson US 5,907,704 May 25, 1999
Martin US 6,704,743 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
Anderson US 2004/0059436 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Aono US 2004/0162834 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Fujita US 2004/0243281 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Appeal 2010-002456
Application 11/035,774

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 through 14, 16, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gudmundson, in view of
Martin and Aono. Answer 4-71.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gudmundson, in view of Martin,
Aono, and Anderson. Answer 7-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gudmundson, in view of Martin, Aono, and Fujita.
Answer 10-11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 and 24 through 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable Gudmundson, in view of Martin. Answer
11-15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable Gudmundson, in view of Martin and Anderson. Answer 15-
16.
ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 9 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the claims dependent upon
claim 1 is in error. These arguments present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding the combination of Gudmundson and Martin
teaches, in response to a notification and prior to updating the data structure,

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
September 9, 2009.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated June
16, 2009 and Reply Brief dated November 9, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002456
Application 11/035,774

4

determining that one or more other ones of the parent data structures is
updating, and updating only if a notification to update has been received
from each of the one or more other ones of the plurality of parent data?
Appellants’ arguments on page 10 through 13 of the Brief directed to
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 and the claims dependent
upon claim 12 present us with the same issue as claim 1. Similarly
Appellants’ arguments, on pages 13 through 15 of the Brief, directed to
claim 21 and the claims dependent upon claim 21 present us with the same
issue as claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Gudmundson and Martin teaches in response
to a notification and prior to updating the data structure, determining that
one or more other ones of the parent data structures is updating, and
updating only if a notification to update has been received from each of the
one or more other ones of the plurality of parent data. Independent claim 1
recites “prior to updating the data structure, determining if a notification to
update has been received from each of the one or more other ones of the
plurality of parent data structures” and “updating the data structure… only if
a notification to update has been received from each of the one or more other
ones of the plurality parent data structures.” Independent claim 12 recites a
similar limitation directed to updating only if notification has been received
from each of the one or more other ones of the plurality of parent data
structures. Independent claim 21 differs in scope in that it recites a first and
Appeal 2010-002456
Application 11/035,774

5

second parent data structure and that prior to updating, the child data
structure upon receiving a notification from the first parent, waits until a
notification is received from the second parent structure, before updating the
child data structure.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments that the
combination of the references does not teach this feature on page 18 and 19
of the Answer, providing the same response with respect to independent
claims 1 and 12. In this response the Examiner finds that Martin teaches a
parent data structure sending notification to child data structures prior to
updating and that Aono teaches a child data structure may receive data from
plural parents. Answer 18. However, the Examiner has not identified, nor
do we find any disclosure in the cited portions of Martin and Ando which
teach or suggest that the child data structure is updated only if a notification
is received from each of the parent data structures. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12.
With respect to claim 21, the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments cites to Gudmundson as teaching two parent data structures and
to Martin as teaching a parent data structure sending notification to child
data structures prior to updating. Answer 20. However, the Examiner has
not identified, nor do we find, any disclosure in the cited portions of Martin
and Gudmundson that teaches or suggests that the child data structure is
updated only if a notification is received from each of the parent data
structures. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 21.
Appeal 2010-002456
Application 11/035,774

6

The Examiner has not identified that any of the other references cited
in the rejections of the independent claims remedy the deficiencies in the
rejections of the independent claims.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4, 6 through
14, and 16 through 29 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc