Ex Parte Polouetkov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11443080 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/443,080 05/31/2006 Igor Polouetkov MHK.155.003 2643
7590 09/26/2012
Lawrence Harbin & Timothy Klima
500 9th Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
EXAMINER
TRAN, ANHTAI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IGOR POLOUETKOV
____________

Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THOMAS S. HAHN, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6, 11, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080

2
Appellant’s invention handles editing, access, and ownership of
shared files in a multi-user document management environment. See
generally Abstract; Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of maintaining an updated version of a shared file in a
multi-user document management system having a master node and at least
one satellite node that communicates over a network, said method
comprising the steps of:
providing a central file storage on the network to store a commonly
accessible file, providing ownership information that identifies a current
owner of the file, enabling the current owner to authorize changes to said file
according to the ownership information,
replicating changes to the commonly accessible file at said central file
storage according to said authorized changes by said owner,
enabling the current owner, in response to a real-time request of a
subsequent prospective owner, to interactively negotiate a transfer of
ownership of said commonly accessible file by altering the ownership
information to identify a said subsequent owner who may authorize changes
to said file, and
providing shared read-only access to the file via a satellite node
communicating over the network with said central file storage whereby to
maintain an updated version of the file when multiple users may be
designated as an owner to make changes to said commonly accessible file.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 11, and 131-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by VERITAS REPLICATION EXECTM VERSION 3.1 FOR
WINDOWS, ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE, VERITAS Software Corp. (2004)
(“Veritas”). Ans. 3-12.2

1 Although claim 13 depends from cancelled claim 12, we presume that
claim 13 was intended to depend from independent claim 11.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 13, 2009
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 27, 2009.
Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Veritas discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including (1) providing a central file storage on a
network to store a commonly accessible file which is said to correspond to
Veritas’ centralized “Many-to-one” replication scheme; (2) replicating
changes to this file; and (3) enabling a “current owner” (i.e., a source node
or server), responsive to a subsequent prospective owner’s real-time request,
to interactively negotiate a transfer of ownership of the file by altering the
ownership information to identify a “subsequent owner” (i.e., target node or
server) who may authorize file changes as claimed. Ans. 3-5, 14-20.
According to the Examiner, this interactive negotiation occurs via the
interaction between replication application instructions associated with the
source and target servers in connection with replication—a process
involving a selectable “No Changes on Target” option that enables target
servers to change the data during replication. Ans. 4, 16-17, 19-20.
Appellant argues that Veritas’ target server is merely a “dumb device”
with no ability to negotiate or transfer file ownership and, in any event,
Veritas identifies authorized users with a permissions database which does
not transfer ownership as defined in the Specification, namely transferring
(1) the latest copy of an electronic file from central storage, and (2) the right
of another node to authorize changes to that file. Br. 4-7. Appellant adds
that Veritas does not replicate changes to a commonly- accessible file at
central storage as claimed, but rather transfers files between locations. Br.
6-7. Appellant also argues limitations in claim 4 noted below. Br. 8-9.

Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080

4
ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Veritas discloses;
(1) (a) enabling a current owner of a commonly accessible file in
central file storage to authorize changes to the file; (b) replicating changes to
the file at central file storage; and (c) enabling the current owner, responsive
to a subsequent prospective owner’s real-time request, to interactively
negotiate a transfer of ownership of the file by altering the ownership
information to identify a subsequent owner who may authorize changes to
the file as recited in claim 1?
(2) a master node providing on-line, interactive negotiation for
transferring file ownership between current and subsequent prospective
owners as recited in claim 4?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, and 13-20
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1. First, the Examiner finds that Veritas’
centralized “Many-to-one” replication scheme provides central file storage
storing a commonly accessible file. Ans. 4, 19 (citing Veritas, 52). We see
no error in this finding, for Veritas replicates files from multiple source
servers to a single centralized target server which fully meets storing a
commonly accessible file at central file storage as claimed. See Veritas, 52-
53.
Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s finding that Veritas’ source and
target servers respectively function as current and subsequent “owners” of
the commonly accessible file. As the Examiner indicates (Ans. 14-15, 18),
Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080

5
Appellant’s Specification is replete with teachings that nodes or servers can
function as file “owners.” See e.g., Spec. 2:18-19 (“[T]he owner of the file
is the master node or the satellite node, each of which may serve individual
users.”); see also Spec. 5:13-14.
Transferring this ownership involves transferring (1) the latest copy of
an electronic file from central storage, and (2) the right of another node to
authorize changes to that file. Spec. 5:16-18. This transfer involves an
interactive “negotiation” with the file owner via program instructions in a
satellite node interacting with those in a master node. See Spec. 8:4-8.
In light of this discussion, we see no error in the Examiner’s position
(Ans. 20) that ownership transfer in Veritas is effectively interactively
negotiated between source and target servers via the interaction of respective
program instructions associated with the “Replication Exec” application
stored on those servers. See Veritas, 5 (noting that source and target servers
within a replication neighborhood must contain the “Replication Exec”
application); see also id. at 7 (noting that Replication Service Agent (RSA)
software must be installed on each server within a neighborhood).
This negotiation effectively results in transferring ownership of a
commonly accessible file (a replicated file) by not selecting the “No
Changes on Target” option that enables target servers to change the data
during replication as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 4, 17 (citing Veritas, at
126). As shown in Veritas’ screenshot on page 125, selecting this option
makes the data read-only during replication such that changes cannot be
made on target servers during replication, but deselecting this option avoids
this restriction. Veritas, at 125-26. Thus, by not only transferring the file,
but also the right to authorize changes to the file by enabling target changes
Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080

6
during replication, Veritas’ replication process fully meets transferring file
ownership under Appellant’s definition of the term. See Spec. 5:16-18. We
reach the same conclusion regarding transferring editing authority recited in
claim 11.
Nor has Appellant persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s position
(Ans. 20) that this ownership transfer is achieved via the interaction of the
respective replication program instructions and associated data on the source
and target server to effectively constitute an “interactive negotiation” as
noted above. Appellant’s arguments (Br. 4-7) are unavailing, for they are
not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13-20 not
separately argued with particularity.

Claim 4
We likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. As
explained above and noted by the Examiner, Veritas’ interaction of the
respective replication program instructions and associated data on the source
and target servers effectively constitutes an online, “interactive negotiation”
involving a master node. Ans. 5-6, 21 (citing Veritas, at 5, 128-30).
Appellant’s arguments (Br. 8-9) are unavailing, for they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 11, and 13-20 under
§ 102.
Appeal 2010-005428
Application 11/443,080

7

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 11, and 13-20 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw