Ex Parte Allman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

14673422 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)

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.
14/673,422 03/30/2015 Mark Allman GB920100085US2
8152-0253
4222
73109 7590 08/24/2017
rWnnt Fnrsvfiie& Kim T T C EXAMINER
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
LU, CHARLES EDWARD
Boca Raton, EL 33498 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ALLMAN, DAVID C. ILLSLEY,
and
CHRISTOPHER E. SHARP
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,4221
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 19—38, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify IBM Corporation as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 30, 2015 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Aug. 9, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 21,
2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 18, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and computer hardware system
for synchronization of data between data systems modeled as a collection of
Representational State Transfer (REST) resources. Spec. 12; Title;
Abstract. The system and method use an event propagation processor
configured to emit events corresponding to data changes in one of the data
systems, and integrate data between the data systems for the events about
data changes in the data systems. Abstract.
Claims 19, 26, and 33 are independent. Claim 19, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
19. A method for synchronization of data between a controlled
data system and a controlling data system, comprising:
receiving, within an event propagation processor and from
the controlled data system, an event corresponding to a change
in data initiated within the controlled data system;
emitting, responsive to the received event, the event to the
controlling data system; and
propagating back, from the controlling data system to the
controlled data system and based upon the received event, a
resultant record to update a record on the controlled data system
with a foreign key.
(App. Br. 32 (Claims App’x).)
2
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
REJECTIONS3 & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 19-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA), as being indefinite. (Final
Act. 5.)4
(2) Claims 19-22, 24—29, 31—36, and 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Guenther et al. (US 2010/0082732 Al,
published Apr. 1, 2010) and Lu et al. (US 2010/0153423 Al, published June
17,2010). (Final Act. 7-10.)
(3) Claims 23, 30, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Guenther, Lu, and Baldwin et al. (US 2009/0193393 Al, published
July 30, 2009). (Final Act. 10-11.)
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 19—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph (pre-AIA)
Independent claim 19 recites a method for synchronization of data
between a controlled data system and a controlling data system, comprising,
inter alia: “propagating back, from the controlling data system to the
controlled data system and based upon the received event, a resultant record
to update a record on the controlled data system with a foreign key.” (App.
3 Claims 19—38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. (Final Act. 5—7.) However, this rejection was
withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer, and is, thus, not before us. (Ans. 3.)
4 We note that a rejection of dependent claims 20, 27, and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)or35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA)—as
being indefinite because the acronym “REST” is unclear (see Final Act. 5)—
was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3), and is, thus, not
before us.
3
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
Br. 32 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).) Independent claims 26 and 33
contain similar limitations.
The Examiner asserts:
As to claim 19, last line, it is unclear whether the subject matter
following the word “to” is required, optional, or merely an
intended use of the claim.
The use of the word “to” as claimed in line 7 of claim 19 renders
the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether or not
the claim scope actually covers updating the record on the
controlled data system with a foreign key.
The other independent claim(s) contain similar issues as claim
19.
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 3^4 (emphases added).)
Appellants argue claim 19 is not indefinite because “[t]he phrase ‘to’
merely introduces a characteristic of the ‘resultant record’ (i.e., the resultant
record is used to update a record on the controlled data system with a foreign
key).” (App. Br. 9.) Appellants assert that “[njothing about the claim
implies that the limitations are ‘optional’ or an ‘intended use’,” as “the
clause [that] follows the ‘to’ is merely a limitation of the preceding noun
(i.e., ‘a resultant record’ as recited in claim 19[)].” App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br.
3.
We agree with Appellants. Particularly, we find the scope of the
subject matter embraced by the claims is clear, i.e., claims 19, 26, and 33
recite a resultant record whose attribute/role is updating a record on the
controlled data system with a foreign key. That is, the claimed resultant
record operates to effect an update to a controlled system’s record with a
foreign key. Accordingly, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 19, 26, and 33, and their dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
4
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 19, 23, 26, 30, 33, and 37
based on the combination of Guenther and Lu
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Guenther and Lu teaches or suggests “propagating back, from the controlling
data system to the controlled data system and based upon the received event,
a resultant record to update a record on the controlled data system with a
foreign key,” as recited in independent claim 19. (App. Br. 23—28.)
The Examiner finds Guenther teaches Appellants’ claimed receiving
and emitting steps, and “propagating back, from the controlling data system
to the controlled data system and based upon the received event, a resultant
record to update a record on the controlled data system.” (Final Act. 7—8
(citing Guenther | 60, Figs, la—lb).) In particular, the Examiner finds
Guenther’s client is a controlled data system providing an event
corresponding to a client’s change in data initiated within the client’s
system. (Ans. 4—5; Final Act. 7—8.) Further, the Examiner finds Guenther’s
sync server is a controlling data system from which a resultant record is
propagated back to the controlled data system (client), to update a record on
the controlled data system as recited in claim 19. (Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 4—5.)
The Examiner further relies on Lu for teaching the claimed record update
with a foreign key. (Final Act. 8 (citing Lu 21—22, 24, 34—50).)
Appellants assert the claimed receiving, emitting, and propagating
back require “a record being created in the controlled system, an event
(about the record creation) being emitted to the controlling system, and the
controlling system returning back to the controlled system a resultant record
with a foreign key.” (App. Br. 24—25 (citing Spec. 1 31).) Appellants argue
Guenther and Lu fail to disclose “propagating back” as recited in claim 19
5
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
because: i) Lu’s “two-pass process . . . does not involve a communication
back to system (i.e., the source database) that initiated the change in the
data”; and ii) “what is propagated back [in Guenther] is not a resultant
record that is ‘based upon the received event’,” rather, “‘server-side changes’
that are found in the ‘reply message’ of Guenther are independent of the
received event.” (App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 5.) Appellants also argue “[t]he
client and sync server of Guenther are not described as being controlled or
controlling systems” as claimed. (App. Br. 26.) Appellants further assert
the Examiner’s combination of Guenther and Lu lacks articulated reasoning.
(App. Br. 27.)
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. (Ans. 4—6.) For additional
emphasis, we note Appellants’ claim 19 does not require “an event (about
the record creation) being emitted to the controlling system,” or “the event
being a data change in the record, i.e., the creation of the record,” as
advocated by Appellants. (App. Br. 24—25 (citing Spec. 131) (emphases
added).) Although claim 19 recites an “event,” “a resultant record,” and “a
record on the controlled data system,” claim 19 does not recite creation of a
record, or “an event (about the record creation).” (See App. Br. 24.) Rather,
claim 19 merely recites “an event corresponding to a change in data initiated
within the controlled data system,” which does not require the event’s data
or change in data to be part of the claimed records (i.e., “record on the
controlled data system” and “resultant record” that is propagated back).
Claim 19 only requires that “propagating back” is “based upon the received
6
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
event.” Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 19.
In view of the broadly recited limitations in claim 19, we agree with
the Examiner that Guenther’s “reply message from the sync server . . .
containing] any server-side changes that the client process hasn’t seen yet
or are a result of the sync server applying relational integrity rules,”
propagates back a resultant record from the sync server (controlling data
system) to the client (controlled data system), as required by claim 19. (See
Guenther | 60; Ans. 4—5.) As recognized by the Examiner, Guenther’s reply
from the server back to the client with server-side changes (resultant record)
is “based upon the received event. . . in which the client changed data,
initiated synchronization and sent [client’s] changes to the server.'1'’ (Ans. 4—
5 (citing Guenther || 60, 63, Fig. 6) (emphasis added).) That is, Guenther’s
reply message from the sync server with server-side changes is based upon
an event (“the client process sends a PUT call that contains the [client’s]
changes to the sync server”) received from the client. (See Guenther 160;
Ans. 4—5.) This is contrary to Appellants’ assertion that “the ‘server-side
changes’ that are found in the ‘reply message’ of Guenther are independent
of the received event.” (See Reply Br. 5.)
Thus, Guenther teaches “propagating back, from the controlling data
system to the controlled data system and based upon the received event, a
resultant record to update a record,” as recited in claim 19. (Ans. 4—5.)
Additionally, Guenther’s server-side changes (resultant record)
“update a record on the controlled data system” as claimed because
Guenther’s controlled data system (client) “decides what to do with the
7
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
received changes [from the server], including updating [the client’s]
records.” (Ans. 4—5 (citing Guenther || 60, 63).)
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the claimed
“controlled data system . . . already knowing] about the changes”
contradicts Guenther’s teaching of “changes [from the server] client has not
seen yet.” (App. Br. 26 (citing Guenther | 60).) Appellants’ support for this
argument relies on Appellants’ argument that claim 19 requires the “change
in data” to be part of what is propagated back. (See App. Br. 24, 26.) As
discussed supra, we are not persuaded that claim 19 requires the event’s
“change in data” to be part of the claimed record that is propagated back.
Appellants additionally argue that “in Guenther, the client initiates the
change in data whereas the server updates the record” in contrast to
Appellants’ method—in which “the controlled data system is involved in
both (i) the initiation of the change in data and (ii) the updating of the
record.” (Reply Br. 4.) Appellants’ argument does not address the
Examiner’s specific findings that Guenther’s client (controlled data system)
also updates the records pursuant to the server’s updating. (Ans. 5; see
Guenther | 60 (“The client process can decide what to do with the received
changes [from the server]. For example, the client process can put any
newly added contact records in a local cache and update a local view to
show the newly added contact records in a list of contacts/4 and “the changes
can be applied to the cached record”).)
Appellants further argue that Lu’s “two-pass process . . . does not
involve a communication back to system (i.e., the source database) that
initiated the change in the data.” (App. Br. 25 (emphasis added).) However,
as discussed supra, Guenther (not Lu) is relied upon for teaching the claimed
8
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
“propagating back, from the controlling data system to the controlled data
system and based upon the received event, a resultant record to update a
record on the controlled data system.” (Ans. 4—5; Final Act. 8; both citing
Guenther | 60).)
Appellants further argue Guenther’s “client and sync server ... are
not described as being controlled or controlling systems”; and Guenther’s
“client does not qualify as [the claimed] controlled system” because
Guenther’s “client process can decide what to do with the received
changes.” (App. Br. 26 (citing Guenther | 60).) We do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive because claim 19 does not preclude the controlled data
system from deciding what to do with received changes. Additionally,
Guenther’s “sync server ‘manages sync transactions’ for the client processes
. . . and thus meets the limitation of being a controlling data system at least
for the client systems[,] which are the controlled data systems”
commensurate with the broad description of “controlled data system” in
Appellants’ Specification. (Ans. 6 (citing Guenther 127) (emphases added);
see also Spec. ^fl[ 3—4, 23—24.)5
Appellants additionally argue the Examiner’s combination of
Guenther and Lu is improper because “[t]he Examiner . . . has not
established that [Lu’s] particular problem is found within the teachings of
Guenther.” (App. Br. 27.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning for combining Guenther’s
5 Appellants’ Specification describes “synchronization of data from one
system to another’’ by “linking] two systems together, regardless of which
types they are, and have data flow from one to the other,” such that “one
system (the controlled system) . . . ha[s] data stored with a foreign key, and
this foreign key is the primary key on the other system (the controlling
system).’ ’ (See Spec. ]ff[ 3—4, 23—24 (emphases added).)
9
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
syncing protocol applying data integrity rules, with Lu’s referential integrity
using foreign keys for data synchronization, to “promote [] storage of valid
data in a database” and “support synchronization of databases” by
“applying] referential integrity.” (Ans. 5 (citing Guenther | 60; Lu 21—
22, 24, 34—50); Final Act. 8.) Lu need not specifically address the same
problem as Guenther in order for it to have been obvious to enhance
Guenther’s data synchronization protocol using Lu’s data synchronization
with foreign key constraints. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 19 and the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 26
and 33 on the same basis as claim 19 (see App. Br. 23).
With respect to dependent claims 23, 30, and 37, Appellants provide
substantially the same arguments as for claims 19, 26, and 33, and
additionally argue that Baldwin does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Guenther and Lu. (App. Br. 29.) Because we find Guenther and Lu are not
deficient, Baldwin is not needed to cover any alleged deficiency, and
therefore we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 23, 30, and 37 for the
reasons stated with respect to the independent claims.
10
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 20—22, 24, 25, 27—29, 31, 32, 34—36, and 38
based on the combination of Guenther and Lu
Appellants contend claim 20 “contemplates an event propagation
processor including an adaptation layer that resides between the controlled
system . . . and the controlling system,” not disclosed by Guenther. (App.
Br. 28—29 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 6—7.) Appellants argue
“Figure lb of Guenther does not illustrate anything comparable to the
claimed event propagation processor between [Guenther’s] sync server 110
and client 120,” and Guenther’s communication protocol (sync protocol
146) “is not an entity that is distinct from both the controlled data system
and the controlling data system, as claimed.” (App. Br. 29 (emphasis
added); Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added).)
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
20 and its base claim 19, which do not require the event propagation
processor to reside between and be distinct from the controlled and
controlling data systems. Rather, claim 20 and its base claim 19 only require
receiving an event “within an event propagation processor and from the
controlled data system,” where “the event propagation processor includes an
adaptation layer in the form of an HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol)
facade to represent REST resources.”
Appellants further argue Guenther’s communication protocol with
“HTTP protocol semantics” cannot be the claimed event propagation
processor because Guenther’s semantics are merely software implementing a
“data structure that defines data characteristics of other data structures.”
(Reply Br. 7.) In contrast, the claimed “event propagation processor is more
than a software component that executes a communication protocol.”
11
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
(Reply Br. 7 (citing Spec. 17).) Appellants’ argument is not persuasive
because Guenther’s communication/sync protocol (146) may be “integrated
into an operating system (OS) of a data processing device(See Guenther
132 (emphasis added).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner Guenther’s
implementation of the sync protocol including “HTTP protocol semantics”
and “follow[ing] a REST-based design” teaches and suggests the claimed
“event propagation processor includes an adaptation layer in the form of an
HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) facade to represent REST resources.”
(Ans. 6 (citing Guenther || 20-25, 40-52, Fig. 6); Final Act. 9.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20, as
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 21, 22, 24,
25, 27—29, 31, 32, 34—36, and 38, and Appellants state that claims 21, 22,
24, 25, 27—29, 31, 32, 34—36, and 38 stand or fall with claim 20. (App. Br.
23.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to claim 20, we sustain
the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27—29, 31, 32, 34—36, and 38. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
12
Appeal 2017-004797
Application 14/673,422
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 19-38. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
13