Ex Parte Movida

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13834767 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
13/834,767 03/15/2013 Mark Movida 888US (102.0149) 1931
10631 7590 08/01/2017
LKGlobal (Salesforce)
Nicole Gorney
The Landmark @ One Market Street, Suite 300
EXAMINER
LIN, ALLEN S
San Francisco, CA 94105 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ salesforce.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK MO VIDA
Appeal 2017-0049581
Application 13/834,767
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JON. M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—19. Final Act. 1. Claim 20 has been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Saraswat (US 2013/0173918 Al; July 4, 2013). Final Act. 3—
5.
Claims 1,2, and 5—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Kiang (US 2013/0268999 Al; Oct. 10, 2013) and Byrd (US
2012/0180021 Al; Jul. 12, 2012). Final Act. 6-9.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious Kiang, Byrd,
and Kravcik (US 2009/0216748 Al; Aug. 27, 2009). Final Act. 9—10.
1 Salesforce.com, Inc. is the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kiang, Byrd, and Clarke (US 7,818,679 B2; Oct. 19, 2010). Final Act. 10-
11.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Kiang, Byrd, and Evans (US 2012/079095 Al; Mar. 29, 2012). Final
Act. 11-13.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Saraswat and Cisler (US 2013/0205251 Al; Aug. 8, 2013). Final Act. 13—
14.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Saraswat and Evans. Final Act. 14—16.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious Saraswat
and Dearman (US 2014/0006496 Al; Jan. 2, 2014). Final Act. 16.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “automatically synchronizing files
between a cloud-based multi-tenant environment and a client application
running on a desktop or mobile computing device.” Spec. 12, Claims 1
and 13 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system for automatically synchronizing data
objects, comprising:
a local computing device;
a remote database;
a user interface module including a file manager
configured to present a list of data objects on the local
computing device to a user;
2
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
a cross platform module configured to run the file
management application on one of a plurality of operating
systems running on the local computing device;
an authorization module configured to authenticate the
user for access to a subset of the database;
an application protocol interface (API) toolkit configured
to perform user-selected functions on the data objects; and
a file synchronizing engine configured to maintain
persistent connectivity between the database system and the
local computing device while the local computing device is
authenticated to the remote database system, and to
automatically synchronize the list of data objects with
respective data objects in the multi-tenant database.
13. In a multi-tenant computing environment of the
type including a server, a multi-tenant database, and a local
computer connected to the multi-tenant database through a
network cloud, a method of automatically synchronizing data
objects in the multi-tenant database with corresponding data
objects on the local computing device, the method comprising:
running a client application on a local computing device,
the client application including a file synchronizing module
configured to maintain persistent connectivity between the
multi-tenant database and the local computing device while the
local computing device is authenticated to the multi-tenant
database system, and to;
displaying a synchronization icon on the local computing
device;
displaying a list of files on the local computing device in
response to selection of the synchronization icon;
displaying, on the local computing device, a first file
selected from the list;
updating the displayed first file on the local computing
device; and
automatically updating, in the multi-tenant database, a
second file corresponding to the first file upon updating the first
file.
3
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 13,14, and 19 by Saraswat
The Examiner finds Saraswat describes all limitations of claim 13.
Final Act. 3^4. In particular, the Examiner finds Saraswat describes
“persistent connectivity” as recited in claim 13. See Final Act. 4 (citing
Saraswat 130) (“communication between users and database”); see also
Final Act. 2 (citing Saraswat 137) (“without persistent connection it is
impossible to automatically synchronize based on changes within data”) and
Ans. 4—5 (citing Saraswat H 4, 29, 30, 37, and 54).
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
Saraswat merely describes an “adaptor” in general, and does not
describe “maintaining persistent connectivity” as that phrase is
used in the present application. This is understandable, as the
disclosed synchronization is done manually (e.g., by clicking on
a particular file and selecting synchronization of that file). See,
for example, FIG. 14 of Saraswat and paragraph [0083], which
states that “[t]o synchronize one or more contacts, . . a user
selects the one or more contacts from the search result list and
clicks the synchronize button.”
App. Br. 17.
Claim 13 recites the following disputed limitation: “a file
synchronizing module configured to maintain persistent connectivity
between the multi-tenant database and the local computing device while the
4
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
local computing device is authenticated to the multi-tenant database
system.”
Our decision hinges on the meaning of “persistent connectivity” in the
context of the claim.
Appellant’s Specification (| 34) discloses:
The file manager includes a background process which
maintains a persistent connection (e.g., 24 hours per day and
seven days per week) between the device and the multi-tenant
environment. The user may then update local versions of files,
and automatically synchronize updated versions via the file
manager without having to separately access the web-based
interface.
In light of Appellant’s Specification, we construe “persistent
connectivity” as connectivity permitting automatic synchronization without
requiring separate access to a web-based interface.
Given this construction, we see no error in the contested findings of
the Examiner.
Saraswat (| 30) discloses: “an adaptor tool exchanges data between
two completely different systems: a customer relationship management
system (e.g., SAP-CRM) and a cloud-based system (e.g., Google Apps).
The adaptor provides a mechanism for users to synchronize their data from
the CRM system to the cloud-based system.”
Saraswat (| 37) discloses:
The job scheduler 180 controls scheduling of synchronization
between the cloud system 110 and the CRM system 140. For
example, the job scheduler 180 may periodically initiate a
synchronization process after a particular period of time has
passed since the last synchronization (e.g., initiate
synchronization every ten minutes), initiate a synchronization
process based on user input received to perform
5
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
synchronization, and/or initiate a synchronization process based
on a change to data maintained by the CRM system 140.
Saraswat (1 29) discloses: “The data exchange adaptor also may
include at least one authentication module configured to perform transport
level security for communications that exchange data between the enterprise
system and the cloud-based system and access level security for data stored
to the enterprise system and the cloud-based system.” See also Saraswat
161 (“Each request to synchronize data has to pass through the
authentication module... two-legged authentication provides seamless user
experience as no human interference is required during the entire
authentication process.”).
Saraswat’s adaptor synchronizes data from the CRM system to the
cloud-based system. See Saraswat 130. Thus, Saraswat reasonably
describes claim 13’s language: “a file synchronizing module configured to
maintain... connectivity between the multi-tenant database and the local
computing device.”
Regarding claim 13’s language: “persistent connectivity,” Saraswat
provides initiating a synchronization process based on a change to data
maintained by the CRM system. See Saraswat 137. Saraswat provides a
seemless user experience without human interference for authentication. See
Saraswat H 29, 61. Thus, Saraswat reasonably describes “persistent
connectivity,” that is, connectivity permitting automatic synchronization
(initiate on a change to data) without requiring separate access to a web-
based interface (seemless user experience without human interference). See
Saraswat H 29, 37, and 61. Regarding claim 13’s language: “while the local
computing device is authenticated to the multi-tenant database system,”
6
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
Saraswat passes each request to synchronize data through the authentication
module. See Saraswat | 61.
Thus, Saraswat reasonably describes claim 13’s “a file synchronizing
module configured to maintain persistent connectivity between the multi­
tenant database and the local computing device while the local computing
device is authenticated to the multi-tenant database system.”
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14 and 19, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,2, and 5-9 over Kiang and
Byrd
The Examiner finds Kiang and Byrd teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 6—7. In particular, the Examiner finds Kiang teaches “persistent
connectivity” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 7 (citing Kiang || 20, 25,
71); see also Ans. 2—3 (citing Kiang || 25, 26) (“Kiang in paragraphs 0025
and 0026 teaches that the synchronization is done automatically.”).
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
Kiang does not teach persistent connectivity; a wired connection does
not teach a persistent connection. See App. Br. 14—15.
Claim 1 recites the following limitation (emphasis added): “a file
synchronizing engine configured to maintain persistent connectivity between
the database system and the local computing device while the local
computing device is authenticated to the remote database system.”
Our decision hinges on the meaning of “persistent connectivity” in the
context of the claim. For reasons discussed above, we construe “persistent
7
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
connectivity” as connectivity permitting automatic synchronization without
requiring separate access to a web-based interface.
Given this construction, we see no error in the contested findings of
the Examiner.
Kiang (| 26 (emphasis added)) discloses:
In general, the collaboration platform allows multiple
users or collaborators to access or collaborate efforts on work
items such [that] each user can see, remotely, edits, revisions,
comments, or annotations being made to specific work items
through their own user devices. For example, a user can upload
a document to a work space for other users to access (e.g., for
viewing, editing, commenting, signing-off, or otherwise
manipulating). The user can login to the online platform and
upload the document (or any other type of work item) to an
existing work space or to a new work space. The document can
be shared with existing users or collaborators in a work space.
Regarding claim l’s language: “persistent connectivity,” Kiang
reasonably describes “persistent connectivity,” that is, connectivity
permitting automatic synchronization without requiring separate access to a
web-based interface. See Kiang 126 (emphasis added) (“each user can see,
remotely, edits, revisions, comments, or annotations being made to specific
work items through their own user devices”). Put another way, the ability to
see edits being made suggests to a skilled artisan synchronization is
automatic and separate access to a web-based interface is not required.
Thus, Kiang reasonably describes claim l’s (emphasis added) “a file
synchronizing engine configured to maintain persistent connectivity between
the database system and the local computing device while the local
computing device is authenticated to the remote database system.”
8
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 and 5—9, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 3 over Kiang, Byrd, and
Kravcik
The Examiner finds Kiang, Byrd, and Kravcik teach all limitations of
claim 3. Final Act. 9—10.
Appellant argues that Kravcik does not cure the purported deficiencies
of Kiang and Byrd. See App. Br. 16.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we find Kiang
and Byrd are not deficient. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 3.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 12 over Kiang, Byrd, and
Clarke
The Examiner finds Kiang, Byrd, and Clarke teach all limitations of
claims 4 and 12. Final Act. 10—11.
Appellant argues that Clarke does not cure the purported deficiencies
of Kiang and Byrd. See App. Br. 16.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we find Kiang
and Byrd are not deficient. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 4 and 12.
9
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 10 and 11 over Kiang, Byrd,
and Evans
The Examiner finds Kiang, Byrd, and Evans teach all limitations of
claims 10 and 11. Final Act. 11—13.
Appellant argues that Evans does not cure the purported deficiencies
of Kiang and Byrd. See App. Br. 16.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we find Kiang
and Byrd are not deficient. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10 and 11.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 15 over Saraswat and Cisler
The Examiner finds Saraswat and Cisler teach all limitations of claim
15. Final Act. 13—14.
Appellant argues that Cisler does not cure the purported deficiencies
of Saraswat. See App. Br. 18—19.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 13, we find
Saraswat is not deficient. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 15.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 16 and 17 over Saraswat and
Evans
The Examiner finds Saraswat and Evans teach all limitations of claims
16 and 17. Final Act. 14—16.
Appellant argues that Evans does not cure the purported deficiencies
of Saraswat. See App. Br. 18—19.
10
Appeal 2017-004958
Application 13/834,767
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 13, we find
Saraswat is not deficient. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16 and 17.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 18 over Saraswat and Dearman
The Examiner finds claim Saraswat and Dearman teach all limitations
of claim 18. Final Act. 16.
Appellant argues that Dearman does not cure the purported
deficiencies of Saraswat. See App. Br. 18—19.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 13, we find
Saraswat is not deficient. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
11