Sartaj K. Sahni et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 16, 2020

14212107 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2020)

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.
14/212,107 03/14/2014 Sartaj K. Sahni 049648/517142 5580
826 7590 01/16/2020
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARTAJ K. SAHNI and TANIA BANERJEE
Appeal 2019-000585
Application 14/212,107
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JAMES W. DEJMEK,
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, 18–20, 22, and 24–29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
University of Florida Research Foundation, Incorporated. Appeal Brief 1,
filed May 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000585
Application 14/212,107
2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns a “publish/subscribe system.” See
Specification ¶ 10, filed March 14, 2014 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 10, and 19 are
independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A publish/subscribe system comprising:
a database storing subscriptions; and
a database manager that when executed by one or more
processors directs the one or more processors to:
perform an update action with respect to a subscription to
the database by:
using attributes of the subscription to follow a path
in a heterogeneous hierarchical subscription data structure
stored in the database until a lowest level is reached where
the number of subscriptions does not exceed bucket
capacity, wherein the attributes of the subscription are
ordered from least occurring at a root of the data structure
to most frequently occurring based on a frequency of
occurrence of the attributes in the subscriptions in the
database, wherein the heterogeneous hierarchical
subscription data structure is configured to use different
data structures for different attributes; and
performing the update action at an appropriate
bucket of the database determined by the following of the
path in the hierarchical subscription data structure; and
searching for one or more matching subscriptions
for an event by:
using the hierarchical subscription data
structure to determine which buckets of the
subscription structure are to be searched; and
searching the buckets of the subscription
structure which are to be searched for the one or
more subscriptions that match the event.
Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2019-000585
Application 14/212,107
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1–3, 9–12, 18, 25,
26, 28, 29 103(a) Chow,
2 Wijbrans,3 Ish4
4, 5, 7, 13–16 103(a) Chow, Wijbrans, Ish, Damm,
5
Fujihara6
19, 27 103(a) Chow, Ish
20, 22, 24 103(a) Chow, Ish, Damm, Fujihara

DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “wherein the heterogeneous hierarchical subscription
data structure is configured to use different data structures for different
attributes.” Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner found that Chow teaches this
limitation because Chow discloses a “geohash representation” that includes
“geohash boxes.” See Final Office Action 4–5, mailed October 24, 2017
(“Final Act.”); Examiner’s Answer 3–6, mailed September 10, 2018
(“Ans.”). According to the Examiner, Chow’s geohash representations have
a “hierarchical natural” and are “unique and thus[] dissimilar or
heterogeneous.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that Chow teaches this
limitation because Chow discloses a system that “provides services to a
variety of computer systems/platforms and thus[] can manag[e] different
data types.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because the cited parts of
Chow describe a homogenous data structure that has subdivisions, not a

2 Chow et al. (US 2015/0215409 A1; July 30, 2015).
3 Wijbrans et al. (US 2015/0020196 A1; January 15, 2015).
4 Ish et al. (US 5,778,430; July 7, 1998).
5 Damm et al. (US 2005/0050060 A1; March 3, 2005).
6 Fujihara (US 5,778,371; July 7, 1998).
Appeal 2019-000585
Application 14/212,107
4
heterogeneous data structure configured to use different data structures for
different attributes. See Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Brief 11–14, filed November
1, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appellant also contends that even if Chow provides
services to different types of devices and can manage different types of data,
that does not establish that Chow uses a heterogeneous hierarchical
subscription data structure. See Appeal Br. 6–8.
We agree with Appellant. The parts of Chow cited by the Examiner
describe a data structure that has subdivisions or sections, not a
heterogeneous data structure configured to use different data structures for
different attributes. See, e.g., Chow ¶ 28 (explaining that Chow’s system
“uses a hierarchical spatial coding scheme that subdivides space into grid-
shaped cells” and that “a geohash representation of a subscription area may
be determined . . . by recursive divisions, starting from the entire geohash
location domain.”), Figs. 3, 4 (showing geohash representations). And even
if Chow provides services to different types of devices and can manage
different types of data as found by the Examiner, this fact does not establish
that Chow uses a heterogeneous hierarchical subscription data structure to
do so, let alone a heterogeneous hierarchical subscription data structure that
is configured to use different data structures for different attributes. We thus
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claim 1 and its
dependent claims. Because the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
10 and 19 have similar deficiencies, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 19 and their respective dependent
claims.

Appeal 2019-000585
Application 14/212,107
5

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9–12,
18, 25, 26,
28, 29
103(a) Chow, Wijbrans, Ish
1–3, 9–12,
18, 25, 26,
28, 29
4, 5, 7, 13–
16 103(a)
Chow, Wijbrans, Ish,
Damm, Fujihara
4, 5, 7, 13–
16
19, 27 103(a) Chow, Ish 19, 27
20, 22, 24 103(a) Chow, Ish, Damm, Fujihara 20, 22, 24
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7, 9–
16, 18–20,
22, 24–29

REVERSED