Ex Parte Bailey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2014

12053444 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NICHOLAS R. BAILEY, MARGARET A. BEYNON, and PETER J. STRETTON ____________ Appeal 2012-000048 Application 12/053,444 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention updates links to data repositories when the repositories’ locations change by transmitting agents to clients and updating user links at each client. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 0022-23. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2012-000048 Application 12/053,444 2 1. A method of operating a communication system, the system comprising a plurality of clients and a data repository, the method comprising the steps of detecting a location change of the data repository, acquiring data defining the clients connected to the data repository, transmitting a component to each client defined by the data, receiving the component at each client, and updating a user link to the data repository, at each client, according to the component. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jayaraman (US 2003/0210694 A1; Nov. 13, 2003). Ans. 3- 5.1 CONTENTIONS In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Jayaraman discloses every recited element of independent claim 1 including detecting a location change of a data repository in paragraphs 155 and 158. Ans. 3. Jayaraman is also found to update a user link to this repository at each client according to a component transmitted to each client in paragraphs 7 and 155. Id. In the response to arguments, however, the Examiner cites various other 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 8, 2011 (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2011 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2012-000048 Application 12/053,444 3 paragraphs from Jayaraman in connection with these limitations. See Ans. 6-9. Appellants argue that Jayaraman does not detect a location change of a data repository, let alone update a user link to this repository as claimed. Br. 4-11. According to Appellants, the Examiner improperly found the recited data repository corresponds to Jayaraman’s resource agent. In fact, the resource agent’s updating an associated resource table does not teach the recited user link updating step at each client. Br. 9-10. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Jayaraman (1) detects a location change of a data repository, and (2) updates a user link to this repository at each client according to a component transmitted to each client? ANALYSIS We begin by construing claim 1. Although the repository location change detection step is recited first, it need not be performed first to meet the claim, nor have Appellants shown that the Specification expressly or implicitly requires this particular order. See Altiris v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that method steps are not ordinarily construed to require an order unless the claim or Specification requires performance in that order). Nor does the claim require the other steps of claim 1 to be responsive to the location change detection step. Nevertheless, we note, as do Appellants, that the Examiner does not identify what element in Jayaraman corresponds to the recited data Appeal 2012-000048 Application 12/053,444 4 repository in the rejection, but rather merely cites various paragraphs from Jayaraman without further explanation. See Ans. 3. Accord Br. 8-9 (noting this ambiguity). Nor does the Examiner’s response to arguments clarify this mapping; rather, the Examiner merely quotes various passages from Jayaraman, most of which differ from those cited in the rejection. See Ans. 6-9. Moreover, the Examiner does not articulate what element in Jayaraman corresponds to the recited data repository, let alone explain how changes in its location are detected. See Ans. 6-9. This ambiguity makes our task of discerning the Examiner’s position all the more difficult. Despite this lack of clarity, Appellants presume that the Examiner intended to map the recited data repository to Jayaraman’s resource agent. Br. 9-10. If this mapping reflects the Examiner’s position, we agree with Appellants that it is problematic. To be sure, Jayaraman’s Resource Inspector uses resource agents that (1) move from one place to another; (2) collect all available resource information about the number and addresses of available databases and permission data; and (3) store the collected data in a resource table. Jayaraman ¶¶ 0095; 0155, 0158, 0221-23; Figs. 7, 21. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 9-10), these agents are “data repositories” in the sense that they store data by collecting it, and they change location by moving from one place to another. But we fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—how this location change is necessarily detected, let alone that these “repositories” are connected to the clients as claimed. At best, Jayaraman’s resource agents are connected to the servers that they visit to gather information—not the clients. See Jayaraman ¶¶ 0095, 0221; Fig. 21. Accord Br. 10 (“[T]he Appeal 2012-000048 Application 12/053,444 5 resource table is maintained by the resource agent and thus is not at a client.”). To the extent that the Examiner maps Jayaraman’s servers to the recited data repository, we likewise find such a position problematic on this record. Although the Examiner’s position is far from clear in this regard, the Examiner apparently finds that Jayaraman’s servers have address-based “locations” that change corresponding to IP addresses in the resource and data location tables in Figures 7 and 8. See Ans. 7 (referring to the resource name and server address in Jayaraman’s resource table as exemplary “locations”); see also id. (noting that the resource and data location tables include IP addresses for each “location”); Ans. 8 (citing the physical or logical movement of data repositories in paragraph 3 of Appellants’ Specification). Even assuming that changes of these address-based server “locations” are detected, we fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—how such a user link to these repositories is necessarily updated at each client according to a component that is transmitted to each client as claimed. Although Jayaraman’s Scheduler Unit uses the server IP addresses along with other information to select the best server address to route the user request (Jayaraman ¶¶ 0159-60; 0234; Figs. 11, 13, 26), updates to links between users and these repositories are not performed at the client, let alone according to a component transmitted to each client as claimed. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 6 and 11 that recite commensurate limitations; and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons. Appeal 2012-000048 Application 12/053,444 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-15 under § 102. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed. REVERSED tj