Ex Parte Goh et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201511127980 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2015) 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. 11/127,980 05/12/2005 Sweefen Goh YOR920050057US1 (163-71) 7386 49267 7590 02/27/2015 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2015 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 SWEEFEN GOH and JAKKA SAIRAMESH ____________________ Appeal 2012-012115 Application 11/127,980 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-012115 Application 11/127,980 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 14–24, 26–32, and 34–39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention relates to managing and synchronizing stored data, particularly retail inventory (see Spec. ¶¶ 1, 20). Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 14. A method for sharing information, comprising the steps of: upon failure of a local node to directly communicate with the main computer, said local node searching for one or more alternate nodes which are willing and able to communicate with the main computer within the next X number of minutes; determining if said one or more alternate nodes have accessed the main computer more recently than the local node; requesting up-to-date information from said one or more alternate nodes which have access to the main computer and have accessed the main computer more recently than the local node; and receiving a reply and the up-to-date information from one of the alternate nodes wherein the up-to-date information is more current than a version stored on the local node. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bornstein US 2002/0163882 A1 Nov. 7, 2002 Appeal 2012-012115 Application 11/127,980 3 Hunter US 6,850,901 B1 Feb. 1, 2005 Rabbat US 2005/0188242 A1 Aug. 25, 2005 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 14, 16, 20–22, 24, 28–30, 32, and 36–39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bornstein and Rabbat. Claims 15, 17–19, 23, 26, 27, 31, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bornstein, Rabbat, and Hunter. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Bornstein and Rabbat disclose all the limitations of claim 14, including that Bornstein discloses “determining if said one or more alternative nodes have accessed the main computer more recently than the local node” and “requesting up-to-date information from [said] one or more alternative nodes [which] have access to the main computer and have accessed the main computer more recently than the local node” (Final Rej. 3–4). Appellants contend “Bornstein is concerned with speed and reliability of its data transfers, rather than requesting the most current information possible from an alternate node. Indeed, Bornstein is clearly silent with regards to at least requesting up-to-date information from said one or more alternate nodes which have access to the main computer and have accessed the main computer more recently than the local node” (Br. 13–14). We agree with Appellants. Bornstein discloses a content distribution network (CDN) with a failover mode in which an “edge server automatically detects when the route Appeal 2012-012115 Application 11/127,980 4 to the origin server is inaccessible and invokes the routing service to find an alternative route to reach the origin server” (Bornstein, ¶ 35). “The alternate routes preferably are determined based on the ping data and are listed in the order that they should be used” (Bornstein, ¶ 43). The Examiner relies on Bornstein’s ping data for meeting the limitation of “determining if said one or more alternate nodes have accessed the main computer more recently than the local node” (Ans. 4–5). However, even if we agree that Bornstein’s ping data discloses determining alternate nodes that have more recently accessed the main computer, the Examiner has not shown that Bornstein discloses requesting up-to-date information from one of the alternate nodes. The ping data cannot serve to meet both limitations of determining which alternate nodes have more recently accessed the main computer and requesting and receiving up-to-date information from an alternate node because claim 14 requires determining the more recent access and then, based on that knowledge, requesting up-to-date information. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 14, independent claims 22 and 30 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 15–21, 23, 24, 26– 29, 31, 32, and 34–39 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14–24, 26–32, and 34–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14– 24, 26–32, and 34–39 is reversed. Appeal 2012-012115 Application 11/127,980 5 REVERSED dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation