Ex Parte Armanino et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201311130773 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013) 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. 11/130,773 05/17/2005 Frederick Armanino NW1050 4134 38516 7590 04/24/2013 AT&T Legal Department - SZ Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FREDERICK ARMANINO, ANTHONY MERRITT, MENGFENG TSAI, and THERESA LEES ____________________ Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. Per curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and system of managing electronic data that includes managing data transported to a server for processing and subsequent transmission to clients. The method and system includes instructing the server to expect and process certain data according to predefined parameters. (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of managing data, the method comprising: instructing a server to expect to receive electronic data from a plurality of network nodes which periodically transmit electronic data during a respective predefined interval for receipt by the server such that the server expects to periodically receive electronic data from each network node during the predefined interval of the network node in advance of such data being received by the server; instructing the server to condition the expected data according to predefined parameters in advance of such data being received by the server, the predefined parameters Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 3 associated with facilitating access to the expected data by one or more clients; and upon the server receiving data from one of the network nodes during the predefined interval of the network node, monitoring at the server when the predefined interval of the network node expires in order for the server to determine that all of the data received from the network node during the predefined interval of the network node is expected data from the network node, saving at the server the data received from the network node in order for the server to determine as a function thereof whether the data received from the network node is either expected data from the network node or unexpected data from the network node, automatically conditioning at the server the expected data according to the predefined parameters so as to facilitate access thereto by the one or more clients, and transporting all of the expected data as conditioned from the server to the one or more clients immediately after being received and conditioned. REFERENCES White US 5,918,225 Jun. 29, 1999 Liu US 6,081,517 Jun. 27, 2000 Miller US 2001/0013057 A1 Aug. 9, 2001 Caldwell US 2002/0046286 A1 Apr. 18, 2002 Wang US 6,434,197 B1 Aug. 13, 2002 Capps US 6,735,691 B1 May 11, 2004 Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 4 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: (1) Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell. (Ans. 2.) (2) Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Liu. (Final Rej. 7.) 1 (3) Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Wang. (Ans. 2.) (4) Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and White. (Ans. 2.) We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell (App. Br. 6-8). Specifically, Appellants contend in Capps, a source computer is interrogated for data by a server when a user requests migration of data from the user to the server (App. Br. 6). According to Appellants, the server expects to receive data when the user of the computer provides the indication (App. Br. 6-7). Therefore, Appellants argue Capps 1 We note the Examiner appears to have inadvertently omitted the rejection of claims 4 and 14 in the Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal (Ans. 2). However, the Examiner indicates the grounds of rejection set forth in the Final Rejection are maintained (Ans. 2) and refers to these claims in the Answer (Ans. 5). Therefore, we consider the rejection to be included in the Grounds of Rejection. Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 5 does not teach or suggest “the server expects to periodically receive data during a predefined interval from the source computer (i.e., the node)” (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants additionally contend Capps does not teach or suggest the source computer periodically transmitting data during the predefined interval (App. Br. 7). Appellants state Miller describes a node (server) waiting for a predefined interval when expecting data from a second node and the second node periodically transmitting the data such that the server periodically expects to receive data from the node (App. Br. 7). However, according to Appellants, the combination of the disclosures of Capps and Miller does not teach the source computer periodically transmitting during a predefined interval of the source computer in which predefined interval the server expects to periodically receive data from the source computer (App. Br. 7). Issue 1: Does the combination of Capps, Miller, and Caldwell teach or suggest “instructing a server to expect to receive electronic data from a plurality of network nodes which periodically transmit electronic data during a respective predefined interval for receipt by the server such that the server expects to periodically receive electronic data from each network node during the predefined interval of the network node in advance of such data being received by the server” as recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. We initially note Appellants have not defined the terms “periodically” or “predefined interval” in their Specification. Therefore, taking a broad, but reasonable Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 6 interpretation in light of the Specification, we interpret “periodically” as “from time to time” and “predefined interval” as any interval (a space of time between events or states or a space between objects, units, points, or states) which has been previously set. We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Capps since the server in Capps expects a response from the source computer in response to a configuration profile setting (Ans. 4). We next find Miller teaches processing tasks in a multiple computer network that uses ordered messages requiring each node to process the same task (protocol) (Abstract; pg. 1, [0009]). Specifically, Miller uses a protocol which is defined in phases, each phase being defined so no node can both send and receive a data message during the same phase of the protocol (Abstract; pg. 3, [0040]; Figs. 7, 10 and 13). Therefore, the protocol is defined in predefined intervals. Accordingly, Miller teaches network nodes which periodically (from time to time) transmit electronic data during a respective predefined interval (during the phase) for receipt by the server. The receiving node (server) of Miller also works on the protocol (Abstract; pg. 1, [0009]; pg. 3, [0038]; Fig. 7). Miller further teaches the protocols can require sending of data including messages and ACKs (acknowledge round)(Final Rej. 10; Abstract). An (ACK) occurs at the end of each phase and serves as a signal to the server that the sender believes the data message has been sent (Ans. 4; pg. 3, [0038]; see also Fig. 7). “[T]he ACK round serves as a time benchmark for measuring when expected data messages should be received if they were sent by the sender” (col. 3, [0038](emphasis added)). Therefore, Miller teaches the server expects data messages and if the ACK round occurs before receipt, can request action Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 7 (e.g., re-sending of the message)(id.). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Miller teaches the server expects to receive electronic data from a plurality of network nodes which periodically transmit electronic data during a respective predefined interval (phases) for receipt by the server such that the server expects to periodically receive electronic data from each network node during the predefined interval (phase) of the network node in advance of such data being received by the server (See e.g., Abstract; Ans. 4-5; Figs. 10 and 13; see also Final Rej. 10). Appellants’ argument that since “Capps with Miller and Caldwell expressly shun ‘timers,’ their proposed combination must logically be silent to ‘periodically transmit[ting] electronic data during a respective predefined interval,’” (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive since, as set forth above, the terms “periodically” and “predefined interval” are not interpreted to require timers. Further, we are also not persuaded by Appellants that because Miller indicates a general preference for an alternative invention to timers (i.e. use of an ACK round), the proposed combination must logically be silent with respect to “periodically transmit[ting] electronic data during a respective predefined interval,” (Reply Br. 2, 3). Indeed, since Miller teaches a protocol that when a point is reached, one node requires a data message from a second node and “the node that expects the data message (the ‘receiver’) typically configures a timer to wait on the expected message” (pg. 1, [0009] emphasis added), we again find Miller teaches the disputed limitation. Appellants’ Reply Brief introduces a new argument with respect to claims 1 and 11 that Capps with Miller teaches away, modifies the principle of operation, and render Capps unsatisfactory for its intended purposes Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 8 (Reply Br. 4-6 and 9) and addresses claim 11independently (which Appellants’ Appeal Brief argued concurrently with claim 1 (see App. Br. 6- 8)) (Reply Br. 6-9). Appellants have not explained why, nor is it apparent that these arguments were necessitated by a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance constituting “good cause” for its belated presentation. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”2) (absent a showing of good cause, Board not required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have been presented in the principal Brief). Thus, we will not consider Appellants’ new arguments as these arguments were not raised in the principal brief or necessitated by the Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the Capps, Miller, and Caldwell, respectively, teach or suggest the limitations as recited in representative independent claims 1 and 11. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 19-20 were not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner erred did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 4 and 14; claims 6 and 16; and claims 8 and 18 Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 4, 6, 8, 14, 16, and 18 is not obvious due to their dependence from claims 1 and 11, respectively (App. Br. 8-9). As set forth above in Issue 1, we conclude the 2 The “informative” status of this opinion is noted at the following Board website: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp. Appeal 2013-003169 Application 11/130,773 9 combination of the teachings and suggestions of Capps, Miller, and Caldwell render the invention as recited in claim 1 and 11 obvious. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 14, claims 6 and 16; and claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Liu; Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Wang; and Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and White, respectively. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Liu is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Wang is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and White is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation