Ex Parte Eidson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2012

10454291 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN C. EIDSON
____________

Appeal 2010-005176
Application 10/454,291
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005176
Application 10/454,291

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-25, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
1. A distributed system, comprising: first device that selects a subset
of a set of data using a model and that transmits the subset via a
communication channel; second device that obtains the subset from the first
device and in response uses the model and the subset to generate a
representation of the data.

Prior Art
Krishan US 6,442,529 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Beyda US 6,470,358 B1 Oct. 22, 2002

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Beyda.
Claims 6-8, 16-18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beyda and Krishan.

Appeal 2010-005176
Application 10/454,291

3
ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-24
The Examiner finds that Beyda teaches a portable computer that stores
a variety of files, such as personal e-mails. Ans. 13. The Examiner interprets
the scope of “set of data” as encompassing the files. Id. The Examiner
interprets the “subset of data” as encompassing newly created, modified, or
updated files. Id. The Examiner interprets the “model” as encompassing a
destination computer that receives synchronization information originating
from a portable computer, and uses the synchronization information in
combination with the operating system to generate and display an updated
representation of the data, such as an e-mail folder. Ans. 12-14.
Appellant contends that Beyda does not describe using a subset and a
model to generate a representation of the data. Br. 9. In particular,
Appellant contends that Beyda does not describe a model as being an
approximation, as discussed on page 9 of Appellant’s Specification. Br. 10.
Appellant further contends that distributing synchronization information
from a client computer to a desktop computer does not describe a set of data,
a subset of data, or a model. Br. 8-9. Appellant also contends that
synchronizing a folder on a client computer with a folder on a desktop
computer does not describe creating a representation of the data. Br. 11.
We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable. The “model”
recited in claim 1 is not limited to Appellant’s exemplary embodiment of a
model on page 9 of Appellant’s Specification. Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish the “model” from the
synchronization software which uses synchronization information for the
updated file to display a synchronized e-mail file. We agree with the
Appeal 2010-005176
Application 10/454,291

4
Examiner that the “set of data” encompasses the set of files, such as personal
e-mail messages, and the “subset of data” encompasses newly created files,
such as new e-mail messages.
We find that the scope of “second device that obtains the subset from
the first device and in response uses the model and the subset to generate a
representation of the data” encompasses a destination computer that receives
synchronization information originating from a portable computer, and uses
the synchronization information in combination with the operating system to
generate and to display an updated representation of the data, such as an e-
mail folder, as described by Beyda. We sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant does not present arguments for separate
patentability of independent claims 12 and 21, and dependent claims 2-5, 9-
11, 13-15, 19, 20, and 22-24, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 6-8, 16-18, and 25
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 6-8, 16-18, and 25, which fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2010-005176
Application 10/454,291

5
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Beyda is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6-8, 16-18, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beyda and Krishan 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

babc