Ex Parte Shin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 5, 2010

10991616 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte HYO-SEOP SHIN
__________

Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: April 5, 2010
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, THU A. DANG, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on March 11,
2010.
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616

2
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to managing data written in
a markup language (Spec. 11, ¶ [55]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for managing data written in a markup
language, comprising:
a data provider that provides fragments having data written in
the markup language split according to a predetermined group of
nodes;
a storage unit that stores the fragments and identifiers used for
distinguishing the fragments on a fragment-by-fragment basis;
a data processor that, upon request for data, retrieves a fragment
containing requested data from the storage unit and provides the
fragment; and
a fragment managing unit that analyzes the fragment provided
by the data provider and stores the fragment and an identifier used for
distinguishing the fragment in the storage unit on the fragment-by-
fragment basis,
wherein when an analyzed fragment is more recent than the
data previously stored in the storage unit, the fragment managing unit
updates the fragment containing the previously stored data.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Jakopac US 2002/0029229 A1 Mar. 07, 2002
(filed Jun. 29, 2001)
Kasai US 2002/0169688 A1 Nov. 14, 2002
(filed Apr. 26, 2002)
Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616

3
The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12-15, 18, and 20-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jakopac.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jakopac and Kasai.1

ISSUE
Appellant asserts that Jakopac fails to disclose “that a fragment
managing unit updates a fragment which contains previously stored data
when an analyzed fragment is more recent [than] the data previously stored
in a storage unit” (App. Br. 9).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Jakopac discloses that when an
analyzed fragment is more recent than the data previously stored in the
storage unit, the fragment managing unit updates the fragment containing the
previously stored data?

1 The Examiner rejects claims 8, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jakopac and Kasai but rejects claims 9, 17, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jakopac. Since claims 9, 17, and
25 depend from and recite each limitation recited in claims 8, 16, and 24,
respectively, we assume that claims 9, 17, and 25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jakopac and Kasai.
Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Jakopac discloses “allowing selective compression and
decompression of information” (¶ [0006], ll. 6-7), the information
including “fragments [that] contain the actual data and are
compressed, and the index, which is uncompressed, [and] provides
. . . identification of any attributes associated with those fragments”
(¶ [0007], ll. 4-6).
2. Jakopac discloses “a file is received for compression” (¶ [0078], l. 1)
in which “the sub-trees 22 and 24, and fragments therein, are
compressed” (¶ [0044], ll. 5-6).
3. Jakopac discloses that during compression of data fragments, “the
sub-tree fragments below the specified level parameter are identified,
and in step S150 compressed” (¶ [0082], ll. 1-3).
4. Jakopac discloses that during decompression of data fragments, “the
document tree prefix is updated indicating the decompression of the
one or more requested fragment(s)” (¶ [0084], ll. 1-3).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616

5
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
As described above, Jakopac discloses selectively compressing and
decompressing data in a storage (FF 1-4) and that when a data fragment is
decompressed, a corresponding identifier (i.e., tree prefix) is updated to
indicate that the data fragment has been decompressed (FF 4).
The Examiner finds that Jakopac discloses updating a data fragment
containing previously stored data when an analyzed fragment is more recent
than the data previously stored in the storage unit because, according to the
Examiner, Jakopac discloses a “file or document when it first received was
compressed” (Ans. 10) and that a “sub-tree fragment is decompressed for
viewing or accessing” (Ans. 11). While the Examiner appears to maintain
Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616

6
that Jakopac discloses compressing data fragments and decompressing the
fragment when the data is accessed, the Examiner does not demonstrate that
Jakopac also discloses updating the fragment much less analyzing a data
fragment as being more recent than data previously stored.
According to the Examiner, Jakopac discloses “the result of the
updated (changed) fragment contained previously stored data)(page 5
paragraphs [0083-0084])” (Ans. 11). Based on the Examiner’s statement, it
appears that the Examiner finds that Jakopac discloses updating a data
fragment when the fragment is more recent than data previously stored in the
storage unit at paragraphs [0083]-[0084]. However, Jakopac merely
discloses decompressing a data fragment responsive to a request (¶ [0083],
ll. 4-5) and updating a prefix to indicate that the fragment has been
decompressed (¶ [0084], ll. 1-2). Since Jakopac discloses updating an index
to indicate successful decompression of a data fragment rather than updating
the data fragment itself and does not appear to disclose an analyzed fragment
being more recent than stored data at all, we disagree with the Examiner’s
finding.
Claims 10 and 18 recite similar features. Also, the Examiner does not
find that Kasai discloses or suggests the disputed feature. Accordingly, we
conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and
18, and claims 4-9, 12-17, and 20-25, which depend therefrom.

Appeal 2009-010587
Application 10/991,616

7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in finding that Jakopac discloses that when an analyzed
fragment is more recent than the data previously stored in the storage unit,
the fragment managing unit updates the fragment containing the previously
stored data.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12-15,
18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

REVERSED

msc

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037