Dropbox, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 28, 2021

2020002965 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

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. 14/872,004 09/30/2015 Jack Benjamin STRONG 20033.100.10_P536USC10 8752 122246 7590 10/28/2021 Keller Jolley Preece / Dropbox 1010 North 500 East, Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2021 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): docketing@kjpip.com gjolley@kjpip.com ljohnson@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JACK BENJAMIN STRONG and GIBU THOMAS ________________ Appeal 2020-002965 Application 14/872,004 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JAMES W. DEJMEK, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non- final rejection of claims 21‒40, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 Claims 1‒20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App’x). 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 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dropbox, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002965 Application 14/872,004 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to synchronizing data used in personal information managers when the data is shared among multiple computing devices. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 21 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 21. A method for updating metadata, the method comprising: maintaining, at a synchronization server, metadata associated with a data object accessible by a first set of client devices associated with a user and a second set of client devices associated with one or more other users; establishing, at the synchronization server, a connection with a client device from the first set of client devices associated with the user; upon establishing the connection, receiving, from the client device, at the synchronization server, a notification of updated metadata associated with the data object, the updated metadata being created prior to the establishing of the connection with the client device and while disconnected from the client device; receiving, at the synchronization server, the updated metadata from the client device; prior to receiving input to publish the updated metadata, maintaining, for access by the first set of client devices associated with the user but not for access by the second set of client devices associated with the one or more other users, the metadata and the updated metadata associated with the data object; receiving, from the user, the input to publish the updated metadata for access by the one or more other users; and Appeal 2020-002965 Application 14/872,004 3 in response to receiving the input to publish the updated metadata, providing the updated metadata associated with the data object to the second set of client devices associated with the one or more other users. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 21, 22, 26‒29, 33‒36, and 40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabbers (US 2007/0016695 A1; Jan. 18, 2007) and Aboulhosn (US 2004/0068524 A1; Apr. 8, 2004). Non-Final Act. 3‒8. Claims 23‒25, 30‒32, and 37‒39 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabbers, Aboulhosn, and Georgiev (US 2013/0198868 A1; Aug. 1, 2013). Non-Final Act. 8‒10. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Rabbers and Aboulhosn teach or suggest “prior to receiving input to publish the updated metadata, maintaining, for access by the first set of client devices associated with the user but not for access by the second set of client devices associated with the one or more other users, the metadata and the updated metadata associated with the data object” and “receiving, from the user, the input to publish the updated metadata,” as recited in claim 21. See Non-Final Act. 4‒6; Ans. 4‒6. In particular, the Examiner finds Rabbers teaches a method that synchronizes data between a client device and a server with a database, where metadata are needed by the client device during synchronization. Ans. 4 (citing Rabbers ¶ 5). The Examiner finds Rabbers teaches distributing updated metadata in the database to users via the synchronization process. Id. at 5 (citing Rabbers ¶ 43). The Examiner finds Aboulhosn teaches a method where a group owner sends invitations to a new member for synchronization of metadata. Appeal 2020-002965 Application 14/872,004 4 Id. The Examiner finds Aboulhosn teaches the group owner receives invitation response messages and sends synchronization messages that include metadata to the users who accept the invitation. Id. at 5‒6. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because neither Rabbers nor Aboulhosn teaches “prior to receiving input to publish the updated metadata, maintaining, for access by the first set of client devices associated with the user but not for access by the second set of client devices associated with the one or more other users, the metadata and the updated metadata associated with the data object” and “receiving, from the user, input to publish the updated metadata,” as recited in claim 21. See Appeal Br. 9‒13; Reply Br. 2‒6. Appellant argues the Examiner does not consider the claims as a whole and, as a result, misinterprets the claims and the references’ teachings. Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellant argues the claims include maintaining metadata and updated metadata, but not for access by a set of client devices that already has access to the corresponding data object. Id. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 21 recites, in relevant part, “maintaining, at a synchronization server, metadata associated with a data object accessible by a first set of client devices associated with a user and a second set of client devices associated with one or more other users” (emphases added). Claim 21 further recites “prior to receiving input to publish the updated metadata, maintaining, for access by the first set of client devices associated with the user but not for access by the second set of client devices associated with the one or more other users, the metadata and the updated metadata associated with the data object.” Claim 21 further recites “receiving, from the user, the input to publish the updated metadata for access by the one or more other users.” Finally, claim 21 recites “in Appeal 2020-002965 Application 14/872,004 5 response to receiving the input to publish the updated metadata, providing the updated metadata associated with the data object to the second set of client devices associated with the one or more other users.” In other words, claim 21 recites maintaining metadata associated with a data object that is accessible by two sets of client devices—a first set associated with a user and a second set associated with one or more other users. The synchronization server maintains metadata and updated metadata associated with the data object, but does not permit the second set of devices to access the updated metadata until receiving input to publish the updated metadata from the first set of devices. The Examiner finds the combination of Rabbers and Aboulhosn teaches these limitations, but fails to explain how the references teach a synchronization server receiving “input to publish the updated metadata” to devices that already have access to the data object. Aboulhosn teaches giving new devices access to a data object and its corresponding metadata (see Aboulhosn ¶ 27), but the Examiner has not explained how such devices are a “second set of client devices associated with one or more other users” that have access to the claimed “data object.” Rabbers teaches distributing updated metadata to all devices that have access to the underlying data object provided the devices have sufficient memory to receive the update (see, e.g., Rabbers, Fig. 9), but the Examiner has not explained how metadata is published in response to receiving “input to publish the updated metadata.” Nor has the Examiner explained how an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine these teachings to achieve the disputed “prior to receiving” and “receiving” limitations. Appeal 2020-002965 Application 14/872,004 6 Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that Rabbers and Aboulhosn teach the disputed limitations.2 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 21. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 28 and 35, which recite commensurate subject matter. By virtue of their dependency from either independent claims 21, 28, or 35, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 22, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 36, and 40. Claims 23‒25, 30‒32, and 37‒39 stand rejected as unpatentable over Rabbers, Aboulhosn, and Georgiev. See Non-Final Act. 8‒10. The Examiner does not find that Georgiev teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See id. We, therefore, also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 23‒25, 30‒32, and 37‒39 for the same reasons identified above. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21, 22, 26‒ 29, 33‒36, 40 103 Rabbers, Aboulhosn 21, 22, 26‒ 29, 33‒36, 40 23‒25, 30‒ 32, 37‒39 103 Rabbers, Aboulhosn, Georgiev 23‒25, 30‒ 32, 37‒39 Overall Outcome 21‒40 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.