Ex Parte Sasaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 3, 2014

11617390 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte TAKESHI SASAKI and MASATO INOUE
__________

Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system,
medium, and method for synchronizing data between a network server and a
mobile device. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Parties in Interest as SAP AG (see
App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“[M]obile business application functionality may be distributed
between an enterprise server and a mobile device” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0004). The
Specification teaches that in “many cases, business application data may be
created, modified and deleted by both the mobile device and the enterprise
server. Consequently, maintaining the consistency of business application
data between the mobile device and the enterprise server is an important
component of the enterprise system” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0004).
The Claims
Claims 1-21 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A method for synchronizing data between a network
server and a mobile device, comprising:
selecting an object instance from a plurality of object
instances for transmission from the network server to the
mobile device, each object instance including a key and at
least one data element, wherein the key is an identifier that
identifies an object type from which the object instance is
instantiated;
starting from the selected object instance as a current
object instance, recursively searching for object instances
related to the selected object instance, comprising:
(a) identifying data dependencies between the
current object instance and other object instances among the
plurality of object instances, comprising:
comparing a value in the key element of
the current object instance with a value in a data element of
the at least one data element of the other object instances,
wherein an instance of the other object instances having a
data element value that matches the key element value of the
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

3
current object instance is related to the current object
instance; and
(b) for each of the other object instances
identified in (a), recursively repeating (a) using each
identified object instance as the current object instance;
sending object instances identified by the recursive
searching as being related to at least one selected object
instance to the mobile device; and
sending the selected object instance to the mobile
device.

The issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Drewry,2 Ramanathan,3 Tyra,4 and Official Notice (Ans. 4-9).
The Examiner finds that Drewry teaches a method for synchronizing
data between a network server and a mobile device with “each object
instance including a key and at least one data element” (Ans. 4-5), but does
not teach the claim requirement for “the key being an identifier that
identifies an object from which the object instance is instantiated” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner also finds that Drewry does not teach “comparing a value in
the key element of the current object instance with a value in a data element
of the at least one data element of the other object instances” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner finds that Ramanathan “teaches dependencies based on
foreign key relationships . . . . Since foreign keys must reference a candidate
or primary key of another object, Ramanathan clearly teaches a key that is

2 Drewry et al., US 5,925,100, issued Jul. 20, 1999.
3 Ramanathan et al., US 2005/0010919 A1, published Jan. 13,
2005.
4 Tyra et al., US 5,493,682, issued Feb. 20, 1996.
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

4
an identifier that identifies an object from which the object instance is
instantiated, i.e. the candidate or primary key of an object in the context of
Ramanathan” (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner finds that Ramanathan teaches
“identifying dependencies among objects by using foreign key relationships,
i.e. comparing a value in a key element of a current object instance with a
value in a data element of the other object instances” (Ans. 6).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “implement the method of Drewry
by using foreign key relationships to identify the data dependencies among
the objects, as taught by Ramanathan, in order to ensure integrity of the data
being transported” (Ans. 6).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Drewry,
Ramanathan, and Tyra render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Drewry teaches that an “exemplary dialogue between a client
and the server occurs as follows. At 651, the client requests an object.
Upon receipt of the request, the server retrieves the particular object from its
own storage device, at 652 . . . . At 655, the server transmits the requested
object and any dependent objects back to the client” (Drewry, col. 12, ll. 10-
17).
2. Drewry teaches “an object (or set of objects, such as combined
code and data objects) stored together with dependency information—that is,
information indicating which particular objects are also required for use of
the (main) object. Each object itself may comprise one or more data
entities” (Drewry, col. 10, ll. 1-6).
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

5
3. Drewry teaches
The dependency list is automatically generated for
each object by the system. The prefetch list or hints, on the
other hand, reference those object indicated to the system
(i.e., via Prefetch primitives) as being likely candidates for
prefetching. The prefetch list appended to a particular
object does not represent a static data structure. Instead, the
list can be modified.

(Drewry, col. 11, ll. 45-51.)
4. Ramanathan teaches
In an embodiment, implicitly referenced portal objects
may also be selected. For example, suppose that a user
selects only portal object 225 for export. If, in order to
maintain consistency due to codependences, it is also
required implicitly that portal object 255 must be exported
(due to foreign-key/master-detail/parent-child relationships),
then portal object 255 may be implicitly selected for
migration.

(Ramanathan 4 ¶ 0048.)
5. Ramanathan teaches
Various packages are employed in the implementation
of step 460. For example, changes to the transport set, such
as modifying the import options, etc., are facilitated through
functions in an application layer, which in turn perform all
the database related operations through database layer.
Various functions determine dependencies among objects to
be exported and/or imported (due to foreign-key/master-
detail/parent-child relationships).

(Ramanathan 6 ¶ 0082.)

Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

6
6. Tyra teaches that:
The object dependency interpreter is a recursive process that
evaluates each software object to determine its
dependencies, and ensures that all lower level dependency
conditions have been satisfied before the present object is
evaluated. The object dependency interpreter also is
responsible for instantiating specific instances of generic
objects and for managing the inheritance properties between
objects.

(Tyra, col. 5, ll. 23-30.)
7. Tyra teaches that:
Object-oriented concepts allow significant reusability
of objects through the concept of instantiation. Instantiation
allows a copy or instance of an object to be created from
either a generic object description or another object using
the principles of inheritance. The particular instance of the
object has its own data and is permitted to override
particular data in the generic object definition.

(Tyra, col. 2, ll. 59-65.)
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
The Examiner finds that “[s]ince foreign keys must reference a
candidate or primary key of another object, Ramanathan clearly teaches a
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

7
key that is an identifier that identifies an object from which the object
instance is instantiated” (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants respond that
the key as recited in claim 1 identifies an object type from
which the object instance is instantiated rather than a direct
reference to another object as the usage of a “foreign key.”
Thus, the key as recited in claim 1 may be associated with a
plurality of objects of the related object type while the
“foreign key” is a one-to-one table column insertion.

(Reply Br. 3).
We find that the Examiner has the better position. As explained by
Appellants, the difference between the claim 1 “key” and the “foreign key”
of Ramanathan, is that the “foreign key” is associated with only one object,
rather than a plurality of objects (see Reply Br. 3). However, claim 1 simply
requires that “the key is an identifier that identifies an object type.” Claim 1
does not require that the “key” is associated with a plurality of objects as
argued by Appellants, but may be associated to a single object, just as
Appellants’ explain regarding a “foreign key.” Thus, the reasonable
interpretation of the term “key” in claim 1 reasonably encompasses the
“foreign key” of Ramanathan, because as Appellants’ acknowledge, both
may be associated with a single object type (see Reply Br. 3).
Appellants also contend that the “sole explanation provided for why
this combination would have been obvious is ‘in order to ensure integrity of
the data being transported’” (App. Br. 7). Appellants assert that “this is
insufficient to establish an ‘articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’” (App. Br. 7).
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

8
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds it obvious to “implement
the method of Drewry by using foreign key relationships to identify the data
dependencies among the objects, as taught by Ramanathan, in order to
ensure integrity of the data being transported, e.g. by maintaining the
consistency of the objects in view of codependencies, which is explicitly
recited by Ramanathan” (Ans. 12-13).
The Examiner provides a specific reason to use the “foreign key” of
Ramanathan in the transmission process of Drewry (FF 1), which is to
ensure data integrity (Ans. 13) based upon the express teaching of
Ramanthan that it is desirable to “maintain consistency” in such transmitted
objects (FF 4). Appellants provide no specific evidence or reasoning
rebutting the reasoning of the Examiner.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
Drewry, Ramanathan, and Tyra render claim 1 obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Drewry, Ramanathan, Tyra, and Official Notice.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2-
21, as these claims were not argued separately.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-011801
Application 11/617,390

9
cdc