Ex Parte McInerney

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

13459637 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/459,637 04/30/2012
61947 7590 03/03/2016
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Mclnerney
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.
P3458USC1 5055
( l l 9-0049USC 1)
EXAMINER
DAO, TUANC.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 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):
mbrininger@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER MCINERNEY
Appeal2014-003998
Application 13/459,637
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 21--40, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims App'x (App. Br. 9). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003998
Application 13/459,637
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to an adaptive synchronization
techniques for updating a display. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 21, reproduced below with the disputed terms emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A method of synchronizing a display representation of
data with changes associated with the data, the method
compnsmg:
determining a change to data, the data associated with a
graphical representation of the data, the graphical representation
for display on a display device;
determining a preferred time value for synchronizing the
graphical representation with the determined change to data, the
preferred time value based at least partially on a duration of time
taken to perform at least one previous synchronization of the
graphical representation, wherein synchronization of the
graphical representation comprises updating display information
on the display device, the display information associated with the
data determined to be changed;
comparing a current time value to the preferred time value;
and
determining a synchronization time based on results of the
comparison, the synchronization time identifying a time to
initiate a synchronization of the graphical representation on the
display device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Elias US 2003/0105619 Al June 5, 2003
Vargas US 2004/0204085 Al Oct. 14, 2004
Naik US 2004/0205206 Al Oct. 14, 2004
Sedlar US 2005/0091287 Al Apr. 28, 2005
2
Appeal2014-003998
Application 13/459,637
REJECTIONS
Claims 21-23, 26-28, 31-35, and 38--40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Vargas. Final Act. 3-9.
Claims 24, 25, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vargas in view of Sedlar. Final Act. 9-11.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vargas in view of Elias. Final Act. 11-12.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vargas in view of Naik. Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree
with Appellant's arguments regarding claims 21--40.
Appellant argues "Vargas is silent as to updating a 'graphical
representation' and is completely and utterly silent as to 'updating
information on a display device."' App. Br. 5. Appellant further argues the
Examiner is taking the discussion in Vargas i-f 87 out of context. Reply Br.
6. According to Appellant, Vargas is directed to synchronizing datastores
and the claims are directed to synchronizing a display:
The Examiner takes this excerpt out of context because Vargas
is merely stating that the underlying data in the datastores can be
synchronized between themselves frequently and if they are
maintained in a synchronized state the information a user is
working with will more likely be more up-to-date. In contrast,
3
Appeal2014-003998
Application 13/459,637
claim 21 is concerned with the time it takes to refresh a display
of underlying data taking into account how long a previous
refresh of the display required. Again, Vargas makes no mention
of when, how, or how frequently to update a display and only
states that an application such as Microsoft Outlook could be
used to interact with an underlying datastore.
Reply Br. 6.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner
concludes the graphical representation of data "includes any
data/information of data structure/property store/visible contents of a
window that needs to be updated from external data, that data/information
can be displayed viewed by an application/GUI." Ans. 5. The Examiner
finds Vargas discloses "a plurality of records/objects each comprising
pluralities of fields or properties. The pluralities of fields and properties are
updated/changed/synchronized and viewed by GUI application" such as
Microsoft Outlook. Ans. 7 (citing Vargas i-fi-10025, 0087). Accordingly, the
Examiner finds Vargas discloses the disputed claim limitation.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred. Contrary to Appellant's argument, Vargas discloses both
synchronizing datastores as well as what is on the display "to ensure that the
information they are viewing and manipulating is up-to-date." Vargas i187.
We therefore agree with the Examiner's finding that Vargas discloses the
disputed limitation.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21, along
with the rejection of claim 33, which is argued on the same grounds, and
claims 22-32 and 34--40, which are not argued separately.
4
Appeal2014-003998
Application 13/459,637
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
21--40.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5