Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2014

11923652 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUOGEN ZHANG, RUIPING LI, and MENGCHU CAI
____________

Appeal 2012-000072
Application 11/923,652
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
Appeal 2012-000072
Application 11/923,652

2
in finding Bou-Diab (US 2009/0037379 A1; filed July 30, 2007) teaches
“via a preference for a matching without a descendant axis over a matching
with a descendant axis and via a preference for a matching without a
wildcard over a matching with a wildcard” of independent claim 1.1 Instead
of a preference for a certain matching, Bou-Diab teaches “performing the
queries simultaneously on the two [simple policy and complex policy
lookup] data structures” (emphasis added). See Bou-Diab [0041]; see also
Reply Br. 3–4. As a result, Bou-Diab does not teach “a preference for a
matching . . .” as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2, 4-16, and 19-22 for the same or similar
reasons.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 19-22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj

1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.