Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 201311255197 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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. 11/255,197 10/20/2005 Daniel Q. Chen AUS920050557US1 4642 48916 7590 08/12/2013 Greg Goshorn, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 EXAMINER CHANG, JEFFREY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2013 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 DANIEL Q. CHEN, MICHAEL L. QUIGLEY, AMAL A. SHAHEEN, and JOHN P. WOODS ____________ Appeal 2011-000148 Application 11/255,197 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-000148 Application 11/255,197 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to providing for information exchange among different information management systems. Spec. ¶ [0001]. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A computer implemented method for organizing data for access by two or more information management systems, each of the information management system having an organizational structure, comprising: comparing the organizational structures of information in a first information management system and a second information management system; creating in said first information management system an organization proxy for said second information management system organizational structure of information; creating in said second information management system an organizational proxy for said first information management system organizational structure of information; and making data content in both said first and second information management systems accessible from either said first or second information management systems according to that system’s organizational structure. Appeal 2011-000148 Application 11/255,197 3 REJECTION Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mendez (US 6,708,221 B1) and Huang (US 6,477,543 B1). Ans. 3-8. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mendez and Huang teaches “creating in said first information management system an organization proxy” and “creating in said second information management system an organizational proxy,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mendez and Huang teaches “making data content . . . accessible . . . according to that system’s organizational structure,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 1) First Issue Appellants first argue that the claimed information management system is a specific element stating “[t]hose with skill in the computing arts should appreciate that the term ‘information management system’ refers to a Appeal 2011-000148 Application 11/255,197 4 particular element that is more specific than a system.” Br. 15. Appellants then provide examples of information management systems in Appellants’ Specification. Br. 15-16. However, as the Examiner correctly finds, the claimed “information management system” is not limited to examples in Appellants’ Specification and may comprise more than one computer (Ans. 8-9). Regarding the claimed organization proxy created in the first information management system, Appellants argue that Huang’s synchronization proxy is not analogous to Appellants’ shadow proxy. Br. 16. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 recite “organization proxy” and “organizational proxy,” but not a “shadow proxy.” The USPTO gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. Appellants have not provided sufficient argument or evidence to persuade us that Appellants’ Specification explicitly defines either “organization proxy” or “organizational proxy.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Huang’s proxy is not analogous to Appellants’ claimed proxy (Br. 16). Additionally, Appellants argue that because Huang’s sync proxy has a CPU, storage devices, and a main memory, it cannot describe an element created in an information management system. Br. 16. However, since as discussed supra we agree with the Examiner’s finding that an information management system may comprise more than one computer (Ans. 8-9), we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Huang’s sync proxy does not teach an element created in an information management system (Br. 16). Furthermore, in addition to describing a sync proxy having a CPU and other elements, Huang describes sync logic. Final Rejection 7 (citing Huang Abstract ll. 12-14). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Huang Appeal 2011-000148 Application 11/255,197 5 teaches “creating in said first information management system an organization proxy,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21. Regarding the claimed organizational proxy created in said second information management system, Appellants argue that Mendez is directed to synchronization of data, whereas Appellants’ claimed subject matter is directed to synchronization of hierarchical organizational structures rather than merely data. Br. 17. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mendez describes translating between formats, in particular a format used by the client and a global format used by the global server. Ans. 9; see also Ans. 3-4 (citing Mendez Fig. 1). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mendez teaches “creating in said second information management system an organizational proxy,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21. 2) Second Issue Appellants additionally argue that the synchronization of data between Mendez’s format A and format B requires an intermediate step of translating data into a third global format, which does not teach retrieving information directly from the proxy, as is recited in Appellants’ claims. Br. 18. Here, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not require that data be “directly” retrieved, but instead recites, “making data content . . . accessible.” Furthermore, as the Examiner correctly finds, Mendez describes that format A is synchronized with the global format without an intermediate step. Ans. 9. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Mendez and Huang teaches Appeal 2011-000148 Application 11/255,197 6 “making data content . . . accessible . . . according to that system’s organizational structure,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, not separately argued (Br. 19). Therefore, we sustain that rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mendez and Huang. 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation