Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 2012

10692895 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2012)

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.
10/692,895 10/24/2003 Hoe-Won Kim 678-1055 8709
66547 7590 04/16/2012
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HOE-WON KIM
____________

Appeal 2010-001455
Application 10/692,895
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a wireless network for sharing
flexible data between one master and at least two slaves wherein the master
periodically sends identifier information for first data which a
Appeal 2010-001455
Application 10/692,895

2
network contains to at least one slave, receives at least one request for data
from at least one slave, finds the requested data and sends the requested data
to the corresponding slave, and wherein the slave detects identifier
information for second data which the slave itself does not contain and
which excludes identifier information for third data which the slave itself
contains from the identifier information for the first data and which is
received from the master, requests the master to send the second data,
receives the second data through the shared channel, updates identifier
information for the received second data in addition to the identifier
information for the third data, and stores the received second data in addition
to the third data. See Spec. 13, Abstract of the Disclosure.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A wireless network comprising a master, a plurality of slaves
belonging to the master, and a shared channel connecting the
master with the slaves;

wherein the master periodically and wirelessly sends identifier
information for first data that the network contains to at least one
slave, receives at least one request for data from at least one slave,
finds the requested data, and wirelessly sends the requested data to
the corresponding slave through the shared channel;

wherein a slave detects identifier information for second data that
the slave itself does not contain and which excludes identifier
information for third data that the slave itself contains from the
identifier information for first data received from the master,
requests the master to send the second data, wirelessly receives the
data through the shared channel, determines whether the received
data is contained in its second data, updates identifier information
for the received data in addition to identifier information for the
third data and stores the received data in addition to the third data
when the received data is contained in the second data, and
Appeal 2010-001455
Application 10/692,895

3
requests the master to again send the second data when the
received data is not contained in the second data; and

whereby the data requested by the slave is received and stored by
other slaves that need it simultaneously so flexible data between
the master and the slaves are shared in real time.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Moshaiov US 6,256,634 B1 July 3, 2001
Matusevich US 6,119,016 Sept. 12, 2000

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Moshaiov and Matusevich. Ans. 3-9.1

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, by
finding that Moshaiov and Matusevich would have collectively taught or
disclosed a method and system for sharing flexible data between a master
and at least two slaves wherein a slave detects identifier information for
second data that the slave does not contain, requests that data from the
master and then wirelessly receives data and determines whether the
received data is contained in its second data?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 16,
2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 22, 2009, and the Reply Brief
filed August 24, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001455
Application 10/692,895

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Moshaiov discloses a method and system for purging deleted data
items from a replicated data base wherein a slave server sends a
request for replication data and, in response to a failure to receive
that replication data, the slave server performs a full
synchronization with the master server. Moshaiov, Abstract.
2. Matusevich discloses a technique for synchronizing the timing
signals in the base stations of a wireless telecommunications
system. Matusevich, Abstract.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Moshaiov discloses a slave server receiving a
list of data item identification numbers from a master server for comparison
with the data item identification numbers in the slave server’s database,
wherein the slave server requests a list of items to be updated after a
comparison and wherein the master server sends only those specifically
identified items to the slave server. Thereafter, Appellant argues that
Moshaiov clearly teaches that in response to a failure of the master server to
provide the requested list of items a full replication is initiated. App. Br. 4,
Reply Br. 2-3.
In view of the process described above, with respect to Moshaiov,
Appellant argues that Moshaiov fails to teach or suggest the slave server
Appeal 2010-001455
Application 10/692,895

5
determining whether or not the requested items have been received and
requesting the items a second time if those items have not been received, as
set forth in claims 1. Consequently, Appellant argues that Moshaiov fails to
disclose a process for addressing the receipt of the incorrect items at the
slave server. App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds that Moshaiov discloses that a partial replication
takes place at the slave server after the requested items have been received
from the master server and, in response to a failure of the master server to
respond to the request of the slave server, a full replication is undertaken.
The Examiner finds that nothing within Appellant’s claims bars additional
information from being transmitted to the slave server from the master
server, in response to the failure of the master server to transmit the
requested items. Ans. 10.
In response to Appellant’s argument that Moshaiov fails to teach or
suggest determining whether or not the requested items have been received,
the Examiner finds “if the slave requested the second data and then receives
data from the server, it may be interpreted that the received data is contained
in its second data, as otherwise the replication of Moshaiov would not
occur.” Ans. 4.
We find that Moshaiov discloses a method and system for purging
deleted data items from a replicated data base wherein a slave server sends a
request for specific replication data and then either updates the internal
database, or performs a full replication if no response is received to the
request from the master server. (FF1.)
We find that Matusevich discloses a technique for synchronizing
timing signals within a wireless telecommunication system. (FF2.)
Appeal 2010-001455
Application 10/692,895

6
We agree with the Examiner that nothing within Appellant’s claims
bars the transmission of all data items in response to a failure of the master
server to transmit the requested data items. However, we find no suggestion
within either reference for performing a determination of whether or not the
data items received from the master server are the requested information, as
set forth expressly within Appellant’s claims. Further, we find unpersuasive
the Examiner’s position that if data is received in response to a slave server’s
request, it must be the proper data.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 and claims 2-5, not separately argued with
particularity.
Consequently, for the reasons set forth above, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims as unpatentable under §103 over
Moshaiov and Matusevich.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 under §103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw