Ex Parte Rangarajan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2010

10161504 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

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.
10/161,504 05/31/2002 Vijay Rangarajan 28657 4534
26327 7590 09/23/2010
THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS
PO BOX 39425
DENVER, CO 80239-0425
EXAMINER
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2010 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 VIJAY RANGARAJAN, DALIT SAGI,
and WILLIAM N. EATHERTON
_____________

Appeal 2009-006443
Application 10/161,504
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON,
and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006443
Application 10/161,504

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 to 10. Claims 11 to 19 have been allowed. Claims 20
to 37 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will not sustain the non-statutory subject matter rejection.
Appellants’ invention is concerned with a data structure encoded on a
computer-readable medium (claim 1). Appellants claim and disclose a data
structure having nodes, arrays, and pointers (claim 1; Spec. 1:1-28). The
data structure is useful generating and using tree bitmap data structures to
determine a longest prefix match (Title; claim 11), and is used in internet
protocol (IP) packet forwarding or switching (Spec. 1:29-30) performed in
routers, packet switching systems, or other communications or computer
systems (Spec. 1:7-11). Such a tree bitmap structure can increase memory
access speeds and reduce the number of memory accesses (Spec. 6:27–7:22).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-readable medium tangibly encoded thereon a data
structure, the data structure comprising:
a first search node;
a first child array including a first internal node and a second search
node; and
a first leaf array including a plurality of first leaf array entries;
wherein the first search node includes a pointer to the first child array;
wherein the first internal node includes a pointer to the first leaf array;
and
wherein the second search node includes a pointer to one of the
plurality of first leaf array entries.

Appeal 2009-006443
Application 10/161,504

3
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 1 to 10 are directed to non-
statutory subject matter is based on the determination that the data structure
encoded on a computer-readable medium (independent claim 1) recited in
the claims is merely an arrangement of data that constitutes non-functional
descriptive material and is not capable of causing functional change in a
computer (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner concludes that there is no defined
structural or functional interrelationship between the data structure and the
other claimed aspects of the invention to permit the data structure’s
functionality to be realized (Ans. 4). The Examiner draws a distinction
between descriptive material that is nonfunctional (e.g., music, literary
works, data compilations, etc.), and that which is functional and consists of
data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when
employed as a computer component (Ans. 5-6).
Regarding the non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 1 to 10,
Appellants argue that the data structure tangibly encoded on a computer-
readable medium of claim 1 is not a data structure in the abstract, but is a
tangible encoding of the data structure on the computer-readable medium
that imposes a physical organization on the data and defines a structural and
functional interrelationship between the data structure and the computer
hardware and software components including the computer-readable
medium (see generally App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2-10). Appellants assert that
the data structure recited in claim 1 is statutory because it (i) is “tangibly

Appeal 2009-006443
Application 10/161,504

4
encoded” on a computer-readable medium (App. Br. 2-5), and (ii) defines
functional characteristics (Reply Br. 2-10).

ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issue is: Are claims 1 to 10
drawn to non-statutory subject matter?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry,
84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (aff’d, Rule 36, Fed. Cir., slip op. 06-1003,
June 2006).

ANALYSIS
The data structure including first and second search nodes, first child
array, first internal node, first leaf array having first leaf array entries, and
pointers recited in claim 1 is descriptive material which is given patentable
weight due to the new and unobvious functional relationship between the
descriptive material (i.e., the nodes, arrays, and pointers) and the substrate
(i.e., the computer-readable medium). See Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338; Lowry,
32 F.3d at 1583-84; Curry, 84 USPQ2d at 1272. We agree with Appellants
(Reply Br. 2-10) that claims 1 to 10 recite an arrangement of data (i.e., a data
structure) encoded on a computer-readable medium that defines functional
characteristics. Appellants use search nodes and pointers to search a data

Appeal 2009-006443
Application 10/161,504

5
structure for a longest matching prefix in a tree bitmap lookup process (see
generally Spec. 17:1–23:22). Thus, Appellants’ Specification describes a
new and unobvious functional relationship between the recited data structure
and the process performed by the communications and computer systems,
router, or packet switching system (see Spec. 1:7-11).
The data structure set forth in claim 1 (including the recited nodes,
arrays, and pointers) is useful and functional in determining a longest prefix
match for IP packet forwarding or switching, and performs a function and
causes a functional change in a router, packet switching system, or other
communications or computer system (Spec. 1:23–5:5). Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 2-5; Reply Br. 2-10) that the data structure
recited in claims 1 to 10 imposes a physical organization on the data and
defines a structural and functional interrelationship between the data
structure and the computer hardware and software components including the
computer-readable medium are convincing.
Claims 1 to 10 recite functional characteristics that cause functional
change in a computer that uses the recited computer-readable medium. In
other words, claims 1 to 10 define a structural or functional interrelationship
between the data structure (including nodes, arrays, and pointers) and the
computer-readable medium that allows the functionality of the data structure
(searching including pointing to arrays and array entries) to be realized.
Claims 1 to 10 are thus directed to statutory subject matter, i.e., a data
structure which consists of functional descriptive material (e.g., search
nodes, arrays, pointers). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 to 10 under § 101.

Appeal 2009-006443
Application 10/161,504

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Claims 1 to 10 contain functional descriptive language and are drawn
to statutory subject matter.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS
PO BOX 39425
DENVER, CO 802390425