Shu-Shang Sam. Wei et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14040143 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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.
14/040,143 09/27/2013 Shu-Shang Sam Wei EMCCP362 8229
57255 7590 09/03/2019
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND
EMC IP Holding Company LLC
10050 N. FOOTHILL BLVD.
SUITE 200
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHU-SHANG SAM WEI, SIDDARAM SIDDANNA BALI,
HARISH RAWAT, SAURAV CHOUDHURI, and AHSON M. AHMAD
____________________

Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,1431
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–11 and 13–20. Appellants have canceled claim 12. See App.
Br. 18. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify EMC IP Holding Company LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
synchronizing an aspect of an object. Spec. ¶ 8. According to the
Specification, there are two mechanisms for customizing behaviors on
instances of a type—type-based objects and aspects. Spec. ¶ 9. “[A]n
aspect only applies logic on an associated instance” of an object type. Spec.
¶ 9. Additionally, Appellants describe an aspect as “an extension for a
persistent object instance” and includes attributes in addition to attributes
defined by the object type. Spec. ¶ 10. In a disclosed embodiment, a
processor determines “whether the type associated with the object has an
aspect and an attribute associated with the aspect indicating to synchronize
the object with one or more updates.” Spec. ¶ 8. If so, the processor
“synchronize[s] the aspect of the object by updating the object with the one
or more updates.” Spec. ¶ 8.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A system for synchronizing an aspect of an object,
comprising:
an interface to receive an indication to access an object of
a type with an aspect attached to the object, wherein the object of
the type includes one or more attributes and the aspect includes
one or more different attributes, wherein the aspect is an
extension of the object of the type and allows the object of the
type to be customized with additional attributes; and
a processor to:
determine whether the aspect attached to the object
of the type has a synchronize attribute indicating to
synchronize the object of the type with one or more
Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

3
updates, the one or more updates updating at least one of
the one or more different attributes of the aspect attached
to the object of the type, wherein the synchronize attribute
is one of the one or more different attributes; and
in response to the determination that the aspect
attached to the object of the type has the synchronize
attribute indicating to synchronize the aspect attached to
the object of the type with one or more updates:
determine whether there are any updates to
the aspect, wherein an update to the aspect exists if
the aspect attached to another instance of the object
of the type has been updated; and
in response to the determination that the
aspect has been updated, synchronize the aspect of
the object by updating the aspect with the one or
more updates.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–11 and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2012/0130952 A1; May 24, 2012)
(“Kwon”); Stritzel et al. (US 2014/0172793 A1; June 19, 2014 (filed
Dec. 13, 2012)) (“Stritzel”); and Teichmann et al. (US 2014/0122411 A1;
May 1, 2014 (filed Nov. 1, 2012)) (“Teichmann”). Final Act. 7–23.
2. Claims 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kwon, Stritzel, Teichmann, and Lee et al. (US
7,031,956 B1; Apr. 18, 2006) (“Lee”). Final Act. 23–26.

Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

4
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1–10 and 13–20
Appellants dispute that the cited references teach “determining
whether the aspect attached to the object of the type has a synchronize
attribute indicating to synchronize the object of the type with one or more
updates” where “the object of the type includes one or more attributes and
the aspect includes one or more different attributes,” “the aspect is an
extension of the object of the type and allows the object of the type to be
customized with additional attributes,” and “the synchronize attribute is one
of the one or more different attributes,” as recited (or commensurately
recited) in the independent claims. App. Br. 11–15; Reply Br. 2–6.
In particular, Appellants argue Kwon describes synchronizing
between connected device and allowed device, but the allowed device is not
the claimed “aspect.” App. Br. 11–13. Moreover, Appellants assert that
synchronization in Kwon is one of the “one or more attributes” of the
connected device and not one of the “one or more different attributes” of an
aspect “because Kwon is silent regarding the connected device being
customized to include additional attributes.” Reply Br. 4–5. Regarding
Stritzel, Appellants argue Stritzel also fails to disclose the claimed “aspect.”
App. Br. 13–14. Appellants acknowledge Stritzel describes that an object
may have a priority, but that the priority is “one or more attributes” of the
object and not “one or more different attributes” of an aspect attached to the

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
March 1, 2018 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed July 31, 2018 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 14, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action, mailed September 27, 2017 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

5
object because Stritzel is silent regarding an aspect as an extension of an
object that further allows an object to be customized. Reply Br. 5. Next,
Appellants acknowledge Teichmann discloses extension attributes, but argue
that “Teichmann does not disclose that one of the extension attributes is a
‘synchronize attribute indicating to synchronize the [business object type
definition] with one or more updates.’” App. Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error at least because Appellants’
arguments are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references,
taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Kwon,
Stritzel, and Teichmann in rejecting independent claims 1, 17, and 18. See
Final Act. 7–16. More specifically, Kwon is generally related to
synchronizing data in connected devices. Kwon, Title. As identified by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 7–8), Kwon describes “determining whether to
perform a synchronization process” and, if so, updating metadata associated
with data synchronization process. Kwon ¶¶ 14–16. Stritzel describes
performing synchronization of an object set between a device and a remote
data store. Stritzel ¶¶ 19–20. In particular, Stritzel describes the
synchronization schedule of the objects may be modified based on identified
priorities associated with the different objects (i.e., different synchronization
Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

6
frequencies). Stritzel ¶ 25. Moreover, Stritzel describes the device may
determine the synchronization priority of an object based on a high-priority
object identifier (e.g., “setting a priority metadata bit”). Stritzel ¶ 40; see
also Final Act. 9–14. Teichmann is relied on to teach the use of business
object attributes and “extension attributes,” which “can be added to a
business object type definition to customize a business object.” Teichmann
¶ 52; see also Final Act. 16.
Thus, Teichmann’s extension attributes (not Kwon or Stritzel, as
argued by Appellants) is relied upon to teach “the aspect is an extension of
the object of the type and allows the object of the type to be customized with
additional attributes.” Moreover, Kwon and Stritzel (not Teichmann, as
argued) are relied upon to teach synchronization and synchronization
priorities as attributes of an aspect (e.g., metadata) of an object of a type.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claims 1, 17, and 18. Additionally, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2–10, 13–16, 19, and
20, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued
separately. See App. Br. 15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).

Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the processor is
further configured to not synchronize the aspect of the object by updating
the aspect with the one or more updates in the event that the type associated
with the object has another attribute associated with the aspect indicating to
not synchronize the aspect with the updates.” Thus, if the aspect associated
Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

7
with the object has an attribute indicating not to synchronize the aspect with
one or more updates, then the aspect is not synchronized (i.e., not updated).
Appellants argue neither reference discloses “another attribute
associated with the aspect indicating to not synchronize the aspect with the
updates.” App. Br. 16. Rather, Appellants assert that Kwon, as relied on by
the Examiner, merely describes that synchronization occurs, but not when
synchronization does not occur. Reply Br. 7.
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). An obviousness 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
As identified by the Examiner, Kwon describes “determining whether
to perform a synchronization process.” Kwon ¶ 14; see also Ans. 7.
Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, we do not read Kwon’s disclosure so
narrowly as to only relate to affirmatively performing synchronization.
Rather, Kwon’s disclosure “determining whether to perform a
synchronization process,” teaches or reasonably suggests that the
determination may be not to perform a synchronization process.
Appeal 2018-007882
Application 14/040,143

8
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claim 11.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 and 13–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED