Ex Parte Ferrazzini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2014

12363177 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AXEL FERRAZZINI, NICHOLAS P. ALFANO, and JAMES ANDREW GODFREY ____________ Appeal 2012-007408 Application 12/363,177 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 29–56, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1–28 are cancelled. We reverse. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Research In Motion, Ltd. (Br. 3.) Appeal 2012-007408 Application 12/363,177 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “tracking device management data changes.” (Abstract.) Claim 29, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 29. A method comprising: receiving a communication at a Device Management (DM) client on a user equipment (UE), the communication being from a DM server and commanding a change to a DM tree on the UE; modifying the DM tree based on the communication; creating a delta record that indicates the change made to the DM tree; and sending the delta record to the DM server. Claims 29–56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Daley et al. (US 2007/0207800 A1; Sept. 6, 2007; hereinafter “Daley”)). (See Ans. 5–10). Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Br.” filed Oct. 12, 2011) for the positions of Appellants and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 28, 2011) for the positions of the Examiner. ISSUE Based on Appellants’ contentions we discuss the appeal by reference to claim 29. The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as follows:2 Does Daley disclose “creating a delta record that indicates the change [to a DM tree on the UE,] and sending the delta record to the DM server” (the “delta record limitation”), as recited in claim 29? 2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2012-007408 Application 12/363,177 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Daley discloses the delta record limitation at paragraphs 39, 42, and 57. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner explains as follows: Daley clearly discloses creating a log which is a record of events that occur on the client. All parameters settable on an electronic device by a DM server may be monitored in the associated log file. See [Daley] paragraph 0057. . . . [O]ne of the parameters settable by the DM server is the creation of or change of the configuration to a log MO [(management object)]. See . . . [Daley] paragraph 0042. Therefore, according to paragraph 0057, this is one of the parameters that can be logged in the log record. Logging this change that is made to the DM tree would be creating a record of the change (delta record). Therefore, the limitation “creating a delta record that indicates the change made to the DM tree” is taught by Daley. (Ans. 13.) Appellants contend “none of the parameters logged in Daley provide any indication regarding changes to a DM tree. Unlike the delta record of claim 29, therefore, the log file of Daley fails to indicate any change made to a DM tree. . . . Thus, rather than indicating changes by sending the entire DM tree to the DM server, claim 29 indicates changes by sending delta records (i.e., smaller pieces of information) to the DM server.” (Br. 14-15.) We agree with Appellants. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical invention must be shown in as Appeal 2012-007408 Application 12/363,177 4 complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of a “delta record that indicates the change made to the DM tree” as recited in claim 29, to be a record of the incremental change in the DM tree. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 306 (1999) (“delta . . . n . . . 3: an increment of a variable . . . .”). This meaning is consistent with the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 14, 24–26), and we conclude it is the broadest reasonable interpretation. Although Daley discloses that “all parameters settable on an electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 107 of FIG. 1) by a user or by a DM server may be monitored, retrieved and/or saved in the associated log file” (Daley ¶ 57 (emphasis added)), the Examiner does not identify any passage in Daley that persuades us Daley discloses that change information regarding the DM tree is saved and transmitted to the DM server in the associated log file. Daley identifies a number of examples of logged parameters: [Logged parameters] may include, for example, an electronic device ID, basic information about the electronic device, and tracing information on, for example, battery level, dropped calls, and connectivity parameters. . . . In another representative embodiment, . . , other parameters such as, for example, radio diagnostic data and data services provided to a subscriber over Internet protocol (IP) may be collected in the log file. (Daley ¶ 57.) None of the examples of logged parameters set forth in the cited passages of Daley relate to a change made to the DM tree. Therefore, the Appeal 2012-007408 Application 12/363,177 5 Examiner does not establish that the parameters Daley’s electronic device saves and transmits to the DM server include a “delta record that indicates the change made to the DM tree” as recited in claim 29. Therefore, the Examiner does not establish that Daley discloses the delta record limitation in as complete detail as is contained in claim 29. See Richardson, 868 F.2d at 1236. Accordingly we do not sustain the rejection of (1) claim 29; (2) independent claims 35, 41, 48, 55, and 56, which recite limitations similar to the delta record limitation; and (3) claims 30–34, 36–40, 42–47, and 49–54, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 28, 35, 41, and 48 respectively. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 29–56 is reversed. REVERSED msc