Ex Parte Deffler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13412253 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/412,253 03/05/2012
106095 7590 09/19/2016
Baker Botts LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tad Alan DEFFLER
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
063170.9775 5769
EXAMINER
BROOKS, DAVID T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAD ALAN DEFFLER
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
Technology Center 2100
Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, JAMES W. DEJMEK,
and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 8, and 19. 1 Claims 2-7, 9-18, 20, and 21 are
cancelled. (9/11/2014 Advisory Action.) We have jurisdiction over the
pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Computer Associates Think Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
implementing data model management. (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 8,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for implementing data model management at a
first client application comprising:
receiving, at the first client application, a data model
from a repository;
generating a first delta data from changes made by the
first client application to the data model;
detecting whether a second delta data, which is generated
by a second client application from changes made to the data
model at the second client application, is stored in the
repository;
sending the generated first delta data to the repository
when the second delta data is not stored in the repository,
wherein the first client application sends the first delta data
comprising changes made to the data model and does not send a
modified data model associated \vith the changes made by the
first client application;
when the second delta data is stored in the repository:
requesting the second delta data generated by the
second client application from the repository;
receiving, by the first client application, the second
delta data from the repository, the second delta data
comprising the changes made to the data model by the
second client application, wherein the first client
application does not receive a modified data model
associated with the changes made by the second client
application;
generating a merged delta data at the first client
application by merging the first delta data with the
second delta data, wherein the generating the merged
delta data comprises:
2
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
undoing the changes to the data model made
by the first client application;
redoing the changes to the data model made
by the second client application based on the
second delta data to generate a server image of the
data model;
executing changes of the first delta data to
the server image of the data model, wherein
executing the changes comprises:
scripting the first delta data against
the server image of the data model;
detecting a conflict between the first
delta data and the second delta data
incorporated in the server image of the data
model; and
resolving the conflict between the first
delta data and the second delta data by
adopting a change of one of the first delta
data and the second delta data in preference
to the other one of the first delta data and the
second delta data based on a prior conflict
resolution; and
extracting changes made to the server image
of the data model from a transaction log to
generate the merged delta data; and
sending the merged delta data to the repository.
8. A method for implementing data model management at a
data model repository comprising:
storing a data model at the data model repository;
sending the data model stored at the data model
repository to a first client and a second client;
receiving and storing, at the data model repository, a first
delta data generated from changes made by the first client to the
data model, wherein the first delta data received from the first
3
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
client, wherein the first delta data comprises changes made to
the data model by the first client but does not include a
modified data model;
receiving, at the data model repository, a request from the
second client for the first delta data;
sending the first delta data generated by the first client
from the data model repository to the second client;
receiving and storing a merged delta data incorporating
the first delta data and a second delta data generated by the
second client from the second client, wherein the merged delta
data is received from the second client, wherein the merged
delta data comprises changes made to the data model by the
first client and the second client but does not include a modified
data model; and
notifying the second client whether the first delta data
from the first client is stored at the data model repository.
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McVoy et al. (US 2004/0073581 Al, pub. Apr. 15, 2004),
Rantanen (US 2012/0239886 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2012), Pofelski (US
2004/0139127 Al, pub. July 15, 2004), and Yuan et al. (US 2010/0088676
Al, pub. Apr. 8, 2010). (Final Act. 9-12, 24--27, 30---32.)
2 After the Final Action, Appellant amended independent claim 1 to
incorporate the limitations of dependent claims 3, 4, and 7, amended
independent claim 8 to incorporate the limitations of dependent claim 10,
and amended independent claim 19 to incorporate the limitations of
dependent claim 21. The above description of the rejections takes these
amendments into account. (See 9/11/2014 Advisory Action.)
4
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mc Voy and Rantanen. (Final Act. 9, 13-16, 21-
24.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 3
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
McVoy, Rantanen, Pofelski, and Yuan teaches or suggests the independent
claim 1 limitation, "resolving the conflict between the first delta data and the
second delta data by adopting a change of one of the first delta data and the
second delta data in preference to the other one of the first delta data and the
second delta data based on a prior conflict resolution." (App. Br. 15-17.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Mc V oy and Rantanen teaches or suggests the independent claim 8
limitation, "notifying the second client whether the first delta data from the
first client is stored at the data model repository," and the similar limitation
recited in independent claim 19. (App. Br. 18-19.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellant's arguments,
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 1, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 30, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 3, 2014); the
Advisory Action (mailed Sep. 11, 2014); and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Jan. 30, 2015) for the respective details.
5
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 9-16,
21-27, 30-32.) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-
6). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
Issue One
For the limitation of claim 1 at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Yuan of performing a three-way merge of different versions of
a structured document, in which tree-structured models of the document
versions can contain ordered parent and child nodes, and merge rules can
require the order of the nodes to be preserved. (Final Act. 31-32; Ans. 3--4;
Yuan iTiT 17, 18, 26, 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46.)
Appellant argues Yuan does not teach or suggest resolving conflicts
between versions based on prior conflict resolution. (App. Br. 17.)
However, the Examiner finds:
[B]ased on paragraph [0043] of Yuan wherein the merge rules
specified include maintaining the order of nodes, Examiner has
interpreted this, such that if an conflict exists for a child node,
and a conflict also exists for the parent of that child node, once
the conflict for the parent node is resolved to the first or second
version, the predetermined merge rules specifying that order
should be maintained result in the conflict for the child node
being resolved on the same branch as the parent node, which
means the child node conflict is resolved based on the prior
conflict resolution of the parent node to follow the same branch.
Thus, Yuan does teach the agued limitation of, "resolving the
conflict between the first delta data and the second delta data in
preference to the other one of the first delta data and the second
delta data based on a prior conflict resolution," as recited in claim
1.
6
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
(Ans. 4.) On review of this analysis, we are not persuaded the Examiner
errs. We agree with the Examiner that the Yuan disclosure of merge rules
specifying order be maintained teaches that the prior resolution of a conflict
at the parent level affects resolution of child conflicts, which falls within the
claim limitation in dispute as broadly and reasonably construed.
Issue Two
For the limitation of claims 8 and 19 at issue, the Examiner relies on
the disclosure in Rantanen of a shared data system including a data
repository containing deviation information associated with files, with data
updates written to the depository, and a user receiving notifications of such
updates. (Final Act. 16; Ans. 56; Rantanen i-fi-120-23, 29, 30, 39, 55.)
Appellant argues Rantanen does not teach "notifying the second client
whether the first delta data from the first client is stored at the data model
repository." (App. Br. 18-19.) However, we agree with the Examiner's
finding:
[I]n Rantanen, the user (i.e. client) is notified of intermediate
publications (i.e. publications while" the user is editing, etc.), and
as described above the publications include the modifications
made to the model, as opposed to the whole model. This is the
same as the argued limitation. Rantanen makes this further clear
by stating, also at paragraph [0055], that, "the user receives
automatic updates," and "the user is prompted on the update( s)
and requested whether or not the update(s) (step 505) is to be
loaded." Prompting a user that an update has been published to
the shared repository is also a form of "notifying" a user (i.e.
client) that an update/ change has been stored at the shared
repository. Therefore, Rantanen in combination with the other
references does teach the argued limitation of, "notifying the
second client whether the first delta data from the first client is
stored at the data model repository."
(Ans. 5---6.)
7
Appeal2015-004897
Application 13/412,253
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1, 8 and 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 8, and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8