Ex Parte Hlasny

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2012

10315618 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DARYL J. HLASNY
____________________

Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22, 24-34, and 36-38. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4, 16, 23 and 35 have been canceled.
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to communication
systems and specifically, to systems and methods for object distribution in a
communication system. (Spec. 1, ¶[0001]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:

1. In an electronic device, a method comprising:

receiving an object from a server electronic device;

receiving a transfer queue that is associated with the object from
the server electronic device, the transfer queue comprising a plurality of
electronic devices that have requested the object but have not received
the object;

after the object and the transfer queue are received from the server
electronic device, communicating with the server electronic device about
dividing the plurality of client electronic devices among the transfer
queue and a server transfer queue stored in the server electronic device
for further distribution of the object, wherein the dividing of the plurality
of client electronic devices among the transfer queue and the server
transfer queue is effected without involvement of another device that is
separate from the electronic device and the server electronic device; and
Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618

3

transmitting the object to a first client electronic device of the
plurality of electronic devices, wherein the first client electronic device is
included in the transfer queue after the plurality of client electronic
devices are divided among the transfer queue and the server transfer
queue, and wherein the server electronic device begins transmitting the
object to at least one client electronic device that is included in the server
transfer queue after the plurality of client electronic devices are divided
among the transfer queue and the server transfer queue.

References
Shapiro US 2002/0161917 Oct. 31, 2002
Boivie US 6,625,773 B1 Sep. 23, 2003
Takahashi US 7,184,945 B1 Feb. 27, 2007
Official Notice

Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shapiro,
Boivie, and Takahashi.
(2) Claims 10 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shapiro, Boivie, and Official Notice.1

1 We note that claims 10 and 29 which depend from independent claims 1
and 20, respectively, should properly be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shapiro, Boivie, Takahashi, and Official Notice.
Takahashi has been omitted from the rejection.
Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618

4
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38
Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over Shapiro, Boivie,
and Takahashi because Shapiro, Boivie, and Takahashi, taken alone or in
proper combination does not teach or suggest “communicating with the
server electronic device about dividing the plurality of client electronic
devices among the transfer queue and a server transfer queue stored in the
server electronic device for further distribution of the object, wherein the
dividing of the plurality of client electronic devices among the transfer
queue and the server transfer queue is effected without involvement of
another device that is separate from the electronic device and the server
electronic device” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 13, 20, and 32 (App. Br. 9-13). Appellant argues
Shapiro does not teach or suggest “dividing the plurality of client electronic
devices among the transfer queue and the server transfer queue” (Br. 11).
Instead, Shapiro teaches a “peer-to-peer routing system” and “multicasting,”
but does not teach dividing of a transfer queue (Br. 12). Appellant further
argues Shapiro does not teach any further action after sending the data to a
neighbor node (id.).

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Shapiro,
Boivie, and Takahashi would have taught or suggested “communicating with
the server electronic device about dividing the plurality of client electronic
devices among the transfer queue and a server transfer queue stored in the
Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618

5
server electronic device for further distribution of the object, wherein the
dividing of the plurality of client electronic devices among the transfer
queue and the server transfer queue is effected without involvement of
another device that is separate from the electronic device and the server
electronic device” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in
claims 13, 20, and 32?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Shapiro as teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitations (Ans. 4 and 11-12). We agree with Appellant’s argument that
Shapiro does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation “communicating
with the server electronic device about dividing the plurality of client
electronic devices among the transfer queue and a server transfer queue
stored in the server electronic device for further distribution of the object,
wherein the dividing of the plurality of client electronic devices among the
transfer queue and the server transfer queue is effected without involvement
of another device that is separate from the electronic device and the server
electronic device.”
The Examiner finds that Shapiro’s disclosure of a peer-to-peer routing
system and multicasting an object to other devices teaches or suggests the
present invention (Ans. 4-5, 7-8, and 11-12). However, the Examiner has
not set forth with specificity how these disclosures teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. As a result we find a gap between the findings and the
recited invention too large to bridge absent speculation. We will not
speculate. Therefore, on this record, we do not find, nor has the Examiner
established, that the combination of Shapiro, Boivie, and Takahashi teaches
Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618

6
or suggests “communicating with the server electronic device about dividing
the plurality of client electronic devices among the transfer queue and a
server transfer queue stored in the server electronic device for further
distribution of the object, wherein the dividing of the plurality of client
electronic devices among the transfer queue and the server transfer queue is
effected without involvement of another device that is separate from the
electronic device and the server electronic device.”
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advance by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Shapiro, Boivie, and Takahashi would have taught or suggested the
invention as recited in claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22, 24-34, and 36-38, not
separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-
15, 17-22, 24-34, and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Shapiro, Boivie, and Takahashi.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 10 and 29
Claims 10 and 29 depend from independent claims 1 and 20,
respectively. The Examiner has not shown Official Notice cures the
deficiencies of Shapiro and Boivie.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Shapiro, Boivie, and Takahashi would have taught or suggested the
invention as recited in claims 10 and 29. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Shapiro, Boivie, and Takahashi.
Appeal 2010-002611
Application 10/315,618

7

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22, 24-34, and 36-38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shapiro, Boivie, and
Takahashi is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Shapiro, Boivie, and Official Notice is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj