Ex Parte Curry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13940339 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017)

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.
13/940,339 07/12/2013 John Curry OC000023 9990
95050 7590 03/09/2017
Tnhn S Frnnnmnn
EXAMINER
78 Ward Dr. ULLAH, SHARIF E
New Rochelle, NY 10804
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2017 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):
docketing@economoupatentlaw.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
jeconomou @economousilfin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CURRY and RONALD MRAZ
Appeal 2016-003718
Application 13/940,3391
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Owl Computing
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. This appeal relates to Appeal 2016-006158
(S/N 14/017,909) being decided herewith.
Appeal 2016-003718
Application 13/940,339
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a system having a one-way interface (110) for
transferring data from PI Server (102) in security network domain (120) to
PI Server (118) in security network domain (121). Spec. 11, Fig. 2. In
security network domain (120), PI Server (102) is coupled to Send platform
computer (106) via network (104). In security network domain (121), PI
Server (118) is coupled to Receive platform computer (220) via network
(116). Fig. 2. Upon receiving historical data from PI server (102), Send
platform computer (106) transfers the data to Receive platform computer
(215), which queries PI Server (118) to determine whether or not the latter
server needs the data. Spec. 17.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A system for transferring information from a first PI server
on a source platform computer coupled to a first network to a second PI
server on a destination platform computer coupled to a separate second
network, comprising:
a send platform computer coupled to the first network and in
communication with the first PI server;
a receive platform computer coupled to the second network and in
communication with the second PI server; and
a one-way data link coupling the send platform computer to the
receive platform computer, the one-way data link configured to transfer data
only from the send platform computer to the receive platform computer and
to prevent any signal from passing from the receive platform computer to the
send platform computer;
wherein the first PI server includes historical information and transfer
configuration information, wherein the send platform computer is configured
to continually receive a predefined portion of the historical information
according to preset parameters from the first PI server and transfer the
predefined portion of the historical information to the receive platform
2
Appeal 2016-003718
Application 13/940,339
computer via the one-way data link, wherein the send platform computer is
also configured to read the transfer configuration information from the first
PI server and modify the preset parameters based on any change indicated
therein without stopping the transfer, wherein the receive platform computer
is configured to receive the predefined portion of the historical information
from the send platform computer via the one-way data link, to query the
second PI server to determine if a corresponding portion of the historical
data exists on the second PI server, and if a corresponding portion of the
historical data does not exist on the second PI server, to transfer the current
portion of the historical information to the secondary PI server, and wherein
the receive platform computer is coupled to the send platform computer only
via the one-way data link.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Bartfai US 2006/0106747 A1 May 18,2006
Schaeffer US 7,260,833 B1 Aug. 21,2007
Gopalakrishnan US 2012/0209967 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan and Schaeffer.
Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 2—\ stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan, Schaeffer, and
Bartfai. Final Act. 4—6.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that
Gopalakrishnan and Schaeffer are not properly combined to teach or suggest
the following:
[A] one-way data link coupling the send platform computer to the
receive platform computer, the one way data link configured to
3
Appeal 2016-003718
Application 13/940,339
transfer data only from the send platform computer to the receive
platform computer and to prevent any signal from passing from the
receive platform computer to the send platform computer, . . .
wherein the receive platform computer is coupled to the send platform
computer only via the one-way data link.
App. Br. 12.
According to Appellants, Schaeffer’s disclosure of a one-way data
link for transmitting data from a first server to a second server would
frustrate the purpose of Gopalakrishnan’s system. App. Br. 12—13, Reply
Br. 8—9. In particular, Appellants argue that replacing Gopalakrishnan’s
two-way data link with Schaeffer’s one-way data link would impair the
integrity and accuracy of Gopalakrishnan’s system by preventing the backup
server from transferring data back to the primary server. Id. (citing
Gopalakrishnan 1110, Fig. 14, Schaeffer, Fig. 1). Further, Appellants argue
that although the primary server is connected to the backup server via
separate network connections, such alternative connections would vitiate the
claim requirement that the two computer platforms being connected only via
the one-way data link. Id. at 14.
In response, the Examiner finds replacing Gopalakrishnan’s two-way
data link with Schaeffer’s one-way data link would not frustrate the purpose
of Gopalakrishnan’s system because the primary and backup servers can
share information through alternative means. Ans. 8—9 (citing
Gopalakrishnan 1109). According to the Examiner, although the claim
language limits the communication between the send platform and receive
platform only through the one-way data link, it does not preclude the receive
platform from communicating with other devices through other means. Id.
at 9. We do not agree with the Examiner.
4
Appeal 2016-003718
Application 13/940,339
Gopalakrishnan discloses a disaster recovery system having a two-
way data link for sharing information between a primary server and a
secondary server. Gopalakrishnan 1110. In particular, the two-way data
link is used between a primary server and a backup server to maintain
accuracy and integrity between the two servers. Id. That is, information of
the two servers remains consistent at all times through periodic data
replication and updates from the primary server to the backup server, and
vice-versa. Id. at H 110-111. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that
replacing the two-way data link with a one-way data link would frustrate the
purpose of Gopalakrishnan’s system by preventing the backup server from
sharing its data with the primary server. Reply Br. 8. We further agree with
Appellants that any alternative means for sharing information between the
servers would vitiate the claim language requiring that the servers be
coupled via a one-way data link only. Id.2
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we need not reach Appellants’ remaining
arguments. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
as well as the rejections of claims 2—5, which recite the disputed limitations
discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1—5 as set forth above.
REVERSED
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider rejecting
the claims over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Fig. 1 of the drawings).
5