13714422 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

Ex Parte Kamimura

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 2016

13714422 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131714,422 12/14/2012 92764 7590 03/01/2016 Kunio Kamimura Azusagawa Azusa 1631-1 Matsumoto-shi, Nagano, 3901702 JAPAN FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kunio Kamimura 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. 4397 EXAMINER THAI,HANHB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): k@atele.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KUNIO KAMIMURA Appeal2014-004754 Application 13/714,422 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-12. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b).2 We AFFIRM.3 1 According to the Appeal Brief "Kunio Kamimura is the inventor, applicant and appellant of the application . . . . The patent may be assigned to Athena Telecom Lab, Inc., which has been owned by Kunio Kamimura." Br. 2. 2 The Board has not yet been granted jurisdiction over Appellant's appeal in co-pending Application 12/864,872. 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 24, 2013, "Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 6, 2013, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 28, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed December 14, 2012, Appeal2014-004754 Application 13/714,422 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods and apparatus to synchronize data. See Abstract. Claims 1, 4, and 7 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: A method, comprising: a first procedure to be performed by one of single or plural processor devices which can handle a first replica of a data, wherein said first procedure is configured to make a first editing plan of said first replica, and said first replica is recorded on a first memory device, a second procedure to be performed by one of said single or plural processor devices, wherein said second procedure is configured to send said first editing plan to an apparatus, a third procedure to be performed by one of said single or plural processor devices, wherein said third procedure is configured to receive a second editing plan of a second replica of said data, from said apparatus, a fourth procedure to be performed by one of said single or plural processor devices, wherein said fourth procedure is configured to update said first replica, using said first editing plan and said second editing plan in order of a sequence determined by information from said apparatus, "Spec.") for the respective details. 2 Appeal2014-004754 Application 13/714,422 and said sequence is used by a fifth procedure to update said second replica. Reference and Re} ection Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Cooke (US 2003/0093431 Al, May 15, 2003). Final Act. 4--8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-12 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in their Brief. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefare deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited reference. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 Updat[ing] said first replica, using said first editing plan and said second editing plan Appellant contends Claim 1 recites the first replica database is updated using a sequence comprising the editing plans for both the first and second replica databases. Appellant maintains that Cooke uses a local 3 Appeal2014-004754 Application 13/714,422 sequence and remote sequence, but fails to merge them into a single sequence to be used for updating replicated databases. Appellant argues that Cooke, in contrast to the present invention, makes state changes which are split into a first sequence to update the local database and a second sequence to update the remote database. Br. 11. The Examiner finds that merging the two sequences into a "single sequence" is not claimed. Ans. 6. Cooke discloses the synchronization of databases by use of a single sequence. We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Cooke discloses each database may include a synchronization manager (SM) and a sequence table. Cooke, i-f 27. In a sequence table, the SM tracks packages of changes sent to and/or received from any remote databases and reconstructs those changes on the local database. The sequence table records the sequence number associated with the state of the database. The sequence numbers include a local sequence number, which identifies changes to the local database, and a remote sequence number, which identifies changes to the remote databases. Cooke, i-f 32. Cooke further discloses that for each synchronization link between databases, a single version is identified in each linked database as the interface version (IV), i.e., the claimed sequence. The system ensures the data contents within all IVs for a given link are identical. Cooke, i-f 30. We find, contrary to Appellant (Br. 11 ), that Cooke discloses an apparatus that "provide[s] information for determining the single sequence." Receiving a second editing plan of a second replica ''from said apparatus" 4 Appeal2014-004754 Application 13/714,422 Appellant contends that Cooke fails to disclose the "special technical feature" of "said apparatus" that is disclosed "in Section 7 .2.1 (1 )" of the Specification. Br. 12. Appellant's Brief does not set forth what Appellant considers to be the "special technical feature" of the claimed apparatus. Moreover, we fail to find any such designation as "7 .2.1 (1 )" in the Specification. As such, Appellant fails to sufficiently apprise the Board of what Appellant considers to be the "special technical feature" of "said apparatus" that is allegedly not disclosed by Cooke. The Examiner finds that Cooke discloses an apparatus, i.e., "system 7," for synchronizing a network of replicated databases. Ans. 6. Appellant's Brief fails to persuade us that the Examiner has erred. Nor has Appellant filed a Reply Brief to rebut the findings of the Examiner's Answer. Sending said first editing plan to an apparatus Appellant contends the recitation "sending said first editing plan to an apparatus," has a special meaning in view of the disclosure of "Section 7.2.1(1)" of the Specification. Br. 12-13. As discussed above, Appellant fails to sufficiently apprise the Board of what the Appellant considers the "special technical feature" of "said apparatus" to be that is allegedly not disclosed by Cooke. Appellant's Brief fails to persuade us that the Examiner has erred. DEPENDENT CLAIM 2 Appellant's arguments for Claims 2-12 are substantially identical to those for Claim 1. Appellant contends Cooke fails to disclose merging the 5 Appeal2014-004754 Application 13/714,422 local and remote sequences into a single sequence and that Cooke fails to disclose the apparatus of Section 7 .2 .1. See Br. 13-23. As discussed above and contrary to Appellant, we find that Cooke discloses an apparatus that "provide[s] information for determining the single sequence." Appellant's Brief fails to persuade us that the Examiner has erred. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6