11642886 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

Ex Parte Ho

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 2017

11642886 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 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. 1933.0200000 2022 EXAMINER QAYYUM, ZESHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/642,886 12/21/2006 Michael Man Kin Ho 26111 7590 02/13/2017 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 02/13/2017 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 MICHAEL MAN KIN HO Appeal 2015-0040241 Application 11/642,8862 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6—25, 33, 39, and 41—46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 21, 2006), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 15, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 30, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed May 28, 2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Dec. 15, 2014). 2 According to Appellant, Sybase, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-004024 Application 11/642,886 According to Appellant, the “invention relates to an object-oriented synchronization pattern with an enhanced application development environment.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 33 are the only independent claims. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the claims. 1. A method for synchronizing a data state of a mobile application residing at a mobile device and a corresponding enterprise data state of the mobile application residing at a server, comprising: invoking, at the mobile device, one or more business service methods after a previous synchronization session between the mobile device and the server, wherein invoking the one or more business service methods comprises: modifying one or more business service objects at the mobile device using the one or more business service methods; and changing the data state of the mobile application at the mobile device according to the one or more modified business service objects; and conveying the one or more business service methods from the mobile device to the server, wherein said conveying comprises issuing at the mobile device one or more service invocations corresponding respectively to the one or more business service methods, and sending the one or more service invocations to the server, wherein the one or more service invocations trigger an execution process at the server. Id. 2 Appeal 2015-004024 Application 11/642,886 REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3 The Examiner rejects claims 1,3,6, 16—24, 33, 39, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gupta (US 7,200,620 B2, iss. Apr. 3, 2007) and Nikolayev (US 7,552,206 B2, iss. June 23, 2009). Final Action 7—15. The Examiner rejects claims 7—15, 25, and 42-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gupta, Nikolayev, and Tysowski (US 7,730,028 B2, iss. June 1, 2010). Id. at 16-19. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is in error because “Gupta does not teach or suggest service invocations that trigger an execution process at the server.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 6—8; see also Reply Br. 2-4. Based on our review of the record, we determine that the Examiner does not establish adequately that Gupta discloses this limitation, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We begin with an interpretation of independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “sending the one or more service invocations to the server, wherein the one or more service invocations trigger an execution process at the server.” Appeal Br., Claims App. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in concluding that the statement “wherein the one or more service invocations trigger an execution process at the server” is intended use and entitled to no patentable weight. Appeal Br. 7, Claims 3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws an indefiniteness rejection of claims 33, 39, and 41—46, which the Examiner made in the Final Office Action. Answer 18; Final Action 6—7. 3 Appeal 2015-004024 Application 11/642,886 App.; Final Action 8—9; Answer 4. Restated, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner must establish that the applied prior art teaches or renders obvious sending, to a server, a service invocation that triggers an execution process at the server. The Examiner finds that Gupta’s column 3, lines 58—62, column 4, lines 8—21 and 51—62, and column 5, lines 12-40, teaches that log entries to a log trigger an execution process, in accordance with the above-discussed limitation of claim 1. Final Action 8; Answer 3—4, 15. Based on our review of these portions of Gupta, Gupta discloses the log entries are replayed to duplicate transactions. See Gupta, col. 4,11. 58—62, col. 5,11. 18—23. However, it is not clear that the log entries trigger any execution process. Further, the Examiner’s determination that “[i]n Gupta the presence of [the] log triggers the execution processor, because the log replay module only needs to execute the transactions when log entries have been received in the replicator buffer. Therefore, log entries cause transactions to occur on the secondary side” is not adequately supported. Answer 15. As stated by Appellant, [t]he Examiner overreaches in his interpretation of Gupta by alleging that because transactions logs must be received by a server before they can be executed by the server, the transaction log “triggers” the execution. There is no support for this allegation^] in Gupta. Gupta is silent as to what actually triggers the execution of transactions from a transaction log. This silence does not support the Examiner’s overly broad reading of a triggering relationship between the receipt of the logs and the execution of transactions. Nor is this triggering relationship either inherent or obvious because there are many possible mechanisms for triggering the execution of a received log file. For example, the log replay module may be triggered on an interval, at a specific 4 Appeal 2015-004024 Application 11/642,886 time, once the buffer reaches a certain capacity, upon a request to access the data, or any other set of conceivable circumstances. It is n[either] obvious, nor inherent, as to what triggers the execution process at the server based on the teachings of Gupta. Reply Br. 3. Because it is not clear that Gupta’s log entries or log triggers any execution process, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejections of its dependent claims, claims 3 and 6—25. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 33 that recites similar limitations as claim 1 and which is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejections of claim 33 dependent claims, claims 39 and 41—46. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-25, 33, 39, and 41—46. REVERSED 5