Shu-Shang Sam. Wei et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201914040143 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation