Ex Parte Sivaraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

10291192 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/291,192 11108/2002
10949 7590 09/30/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ganesh Sivaraman
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.
042933/417410 2503
EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GANESH SIV ARAMAN and RIKU METT ALA
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
Technology Center 2400
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14-24, 27-33, and 35--46, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed March 25, 2015) and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed October 20,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 6, 2015) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 24, 2014).
2 Claims 3, 11-13, 25, 26, and 34 were canceled previously.
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to data synchronization between
devices. Spec. 1 :6-8.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
sending from a first device to a second device an alert for
resuming signal containing information related to a request for
the resumption of a previous incomplete synchronization
session; and
receiving from the second device, at the first device, a
status for the alert for resuming signal indicative of information
related to a synchronization type to be carried out, wherein if said
request is accepted, said synchronization type is a same
synchronization type carried out during said previous incomplete
synchronization session.
REFERENCES
Kadyk et al. ("Kadyk") US 6,941,326 B2
Doman et al. ("Doman") US 7,072,911 Bl
Sept. 6, 2005 3
July 4, 20064
SyncML Meta-Information DTD, Version 1.0, December 2000.
(hereinafter "SyncML")
REJECTIONS5
Claims 1, 2, 32, 33, 35-39, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Doman. Final Act. 3-12; Ans. 3-12.
3 Application filed January 24, 2001.
4 Application filed July 24, 2002.
5 Appellants argue that the Examiner's objections to claims 1, 36, and 39 are
improper. App. Br. 29-31. However, this relates to a petitionable matter
and not to an appealable matter. See In re Schneider, 481F.2d1350, 1356-
57 (CCPA 1973); In re Mindick, 371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967).
2
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
Claims 4-8, 14-19, 24, 27-31, 40, 41, 43, and 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doman and Kadyk. Final
Act. 12-34; Ans. 13-35.
Claims 9, 10, 20-23, 42, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doman, Kadyk, and SyncML. Final
Act. 35--40; Ans. 35--41.
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 32,
33, and 35--46 turns on whether Doman discloses (a) "sending from a first
device to a second device an alert for resuming signal containing
information related to a request for the resumption of a previous incomplete
synchronization session," and (b) "receiving from the second device, at the
first device, a status for the alert for resuming signal indicative of
information related to a synchronization type ... [wherein] said
synchronization type is a same synchronization type carried out during said
previous incomplete synchronization session," as recited in independent
claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 32, 33, 35, 36, and 39.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16-24
and 27-31 turns on whether Kadyk teaches (a)
transmitting by the first device to the second device a first update
identifier and a second update identifier, said first update
identifier denoting a preceding complete synchronization event
performed between said first device and said second device, a
value of said first update identifier being stored at least in said
first device, said second update identifier denoting a preceding
incomplete synchronization event started between said first
Accordingly, we will not consider Appellants' argument regarding the
Examiner's objections any further.
3
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
device and said second device, a value of said second update
identifier stored at least in said first device;
(b) "retrieving or forming an indication of data that has been successfully
synchronized during said preceding incomplete synchronization event;" ( c)
"using said indication, synchronizing data that has not been successfully
synchronized during said preceding incomplete synchronization event;" and
( d) "at least in said first device, updating said value of said first update
identifier with said value of said second update identifier," as recited in
independent claim 16, and similarly recited independent claims 28 and 31.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 turns on
whether Kadyk teaches "the information related to the request includes
information logged in accordance with the interruption of the previous
incomplete synchronization session and allowing for the resumption of the
previous incomplete synchronization session," as recited in dependent claim
4.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 turns on
whether Kadyk teaches "the information logged in accordance with the
interruption of the previous incomplete synchronization session being stored
in each device of said first device and said second device," as recited in
dependent claim 5.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6-10, 14,
and 15 turns on whether Kadyk teaches "the information logged in
accordance with the interruption of the previous incomplete synchronization
session includes a first update identifier containing information about a
previous complete synchronization session having been performed between
two devices, and also includes a second update identifier containing
4
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
information about the previous incomplete synchronization session," as
recited in dependent claim 6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 32, 33, 35-39, and 46 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Doman
Independent claim 1 recites "sending from a first device to a second
device an alert for resuming signal containing information related to a
request for the resumption of a previous incomplete synchronization
session." Independent claims 32, 33, 35, 36, and 39 recite similar
limitations. Appellants argue that rather than sending an alert for resuming a
previous incomplete synchronization session, Doman discloses initiating a
new synchronization session between a source server and a destination
server. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Doman 2:24-50); Reply Br. 3--4. We
disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds that Doman discloses a source server that requests
the initiation of a synchronization session with a destination server and starts
the synchronization session at a point when a prior synchronization cycle
between the servers was interrupted. Final Act. 3-4 (citing Doman 2:24-28,
62-67). That is, the source server's request alerts the destination server to
resume synchronization at the point at which there was an error during the
previous incomplete session, thereby resuming the synchronization process
where the previous incomplete session concluded, rather than starting a new
synchronization session at another point unrelated to the previous
incomplete session. Doman 2:24-42. Thus, we disagree with Appellants'
argument that Doman fails to alert a starting point for a previously
incomplete synchronization session.
5
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
Independent claim 1 also recites "receiving from the second device, at
the first device, a status for the alert for resuming signal indicative of
information related to a synchronization type ... [wherein] said
synchronization type is a same synchronization type carried out during said
previous incomplete synchronization session." Independent claims 32, 33,
35, 36, and 39 recite similar limitations. Appellants argue that Doman fails
to disclose receiving a status for the alert for resuming signal from the
second device because Doman discloses initiating a new synchronization
session starting at either the point the last session failed or the point where
the last session successfully completed. App. Br. 15 (citing Doman 2:43-
50). We disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds that Doman discloses that the source server
extracts the synchronization type identifier from the destination server.
Final Act. 4. This meets the limitation of "receiving from the second device,
at the first device, a status for the alert for resuming signal indicative of
information related to a synchronization type ... [wherein] said
synchronization type is a same synchronization type carried out during said
previous incomplete synchronization session" because the extracted
identifier informs the source server of the type of synchronization session
that is to be initiated between the two servers. Final Act. 4 (citing Doman
2:32-36); see also Ans. 44. The destination server informs the source server
that it is available to resume the previous synchronization session, which
includes the session type, at the point of the previous disconnection. See
Doman 2:32-36. Thus, we do not find Appellants' argument persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 32, 33, 35, 36, and 39. Appellants argue that dependent claims 2,
37, 38, and 46 are patentable for the same reasons. App. Br. 16. As such,
6
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
Claims 4-8, 14-19, 24, 27-31, 40, 41, 43, and 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Doman and Kadyk
Claims 16--19, 24, 27-31, 40, 41, 43, and 44
Independent claim 16 recites
transmitting by the first device to the second device a first update
identifier and a second update identifier, said first update
identifier denoting a preceding complete synchronization event
performed between said first device and said second device, a
value of said first update identifier being stored at least in said
first device, said second update identifier denoting a preceding
incomplete synchronization event started between said first
device and said second device, a value of said second update
identifier stored at least in said first device.
Independent claims 28 and 31 recite similar limitations.
Appellants contend that Kadyk teaches a synchronization process that
involves comparing data stored on each of the server and client after a
previous synchronization has completed, \1:1ithout sending first and second
update identifiers to the second device and storing the identifiers on at least
the first device as claimed. App. Br. 19-21 (citing Kadyk 5:39--42, 6:12-14,
9:58-61, 10:29-34, 65-67, 11: 1-3, 7-15); Reply Br. 6-9. We disagree with
Appellants.
The Examiner finds that Kadyk teaches a server containing tokens
associated with data changes. Ans. 47 (citing Kadyk 6:12-14). The
Examiner further finds that Kadyk teaches that the server exchanges token
collections with a client to determine whether the client's data needs to be
updated, and whether the previous synchronization event was complete or
incomplete. Id. at 47--48 (citing Kadyk 10:29-34). The Examiner also finds
that the collection exchange and the determinations made based upon the
7
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
exchange teach sending the first and second update identifiers. Id. If the
client's collection does not contain all of the tokens present in the server's
collection, the client then requests an update containing the missing tokens
and their associated data from the server. Id. (citing Kadyk 6:30-34, 10:29-
34). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Kadyk that teaches the last token
stored in the client marks the end of a previous synchronization event, where
the next synchronization event will begin between the two devices. Final
Act. 17 (citing Kadyk 5:39--42, 6:12-14); Ans. 47 (citing Kadyk 6:12-14,
30-34).
We agree that the portions of Kadyk cited by the Examiner meet the
claim limitation because the server's collection of tokens is stored on the
server, and sending this collection of tokens to the client updates the client
as to whether the preceding synchronization event was complete or
incomplete due to an interruption preventing all of the tokens and their
associated data changes from being received by the client. Kadyk 10:26-34.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Independent claim 16 also recites "retrieving or forming an indication
of data that has been successfully synchronized during said preceding
incomplete synchronization event"; "using said indication, synchronizing
data that has not been successfully synchronized during said preceding
incomplete synchronization event"; and "at least in said first device,
updating said value of said first update identifier with said value of said
second update identifier." Independent claims 28 and 31 recite similar
limitations.
Appellants argue Kadyk fails to teach "retrieving or forming an
indication of data that has been successfully synchronized during said
preceding incomplete synchronization event," and "using said indication,
8
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
synchronizing data that has not been successfully synchronized during said
preceding incomplete synchronization event." App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 9-
10. Appellants contend that Kadyk instead teaches a server receiving a new
synchronization request from a client, comparing data sets between the
server and client, and then having the server send the client notifications
associated with the missing data so that the client can request the data it has
not yet received. App. Br. 21-22 (citing Kadyk 10:65-11:3, 11:7-15);
Reply Br. 9-10. We disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds that Kadyk teaches a server comparing its token
collection with that of a client to determine what data has been successfully
synchronized between the two devices and what data has not yet been
received by the client. Ans. 47--49 (citing Kadyk 6:12-14, 30-34, 10:29-
34). As such, the Examiner finds that the difference in token collections
represents data that has not yet been synchronized. See id. at 49. The
Examiner also finds that Kadyk teaches determining whether data that has
been synchronized between the server and the client was part of a previous
incomplete synchronization event based upon the token collection
comparison. See id. at 48 (citing Kadyk 10:29-34, 11:7-15). The Examiner
finds that Kadyk's determination of which tokens have and have not yet
been synchronized, and determining whether the difference in token
collections is due to a previous incomplete synchronization session, teaches
"retrieving or forming an indication of data that has been successfully
synchronized during said preceding incomplete synchronization event." Id.
The Examiner further finds that Kadyk discloses sending the tokens and
associated data that were not received during a previous, interrupted
synchronization event to the client teaches the limitation of "using said
indication, synchronizing data that has not been successfully synchronized
9
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
during said preceding incomplete synchronization event." See id. at 47--48
(citing Kadyk 10:29-34).
We agree with the Examiner's findings because Kadyk uses the token
collection comparison to determine whether previously synchronized data
was part of an incomplete previous synchronization event and to transmit
from the server to the client the data that was not previously synchronized
successfully. Final Act. 17; Ans. 47--48; see Kadyk 9:58-10:35. In other
words, Kadyk' s token collection comparison indicates to the server which
data has been successfully synchronized with the client, as well as, which
data has not been synchronized, and then based upon that indication, sends
the unsynchronized data to the client. Accordingly, we do not find
Appellants' argument persuasive.
Additionally, Appellants argue that Kadyk fails to teach "at least in
said first device, updating said value of said first update identifier with said
value of said second update identifier," as recited in claim 16 and similarly
recited in claims 28 and 31. App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 11. Appellants
contend that Kadyk instead teaches replacing a client's stored data changes
from a previous complete synchronization with a new complete set of data
changes representing a complete synchronization. App. Br. 23 (citing
Kadyk 9:58-61, 12:45-52); Reply Br. 11 (citing Kadyk 6: 12-14, 30-34,
10:29-34). We disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds that Kadyk's updating the client's token
collection to match that of the server following synchronization teaches "at
least in said first device, updating said value of said first update identifier
with said value of said second update identifier." See Final Act. 18 (citing
Kadyk 9:58-61, 12:45-52); Ans. 49. We agree with the Examiner's
findings because following a successful synchronization in Kadyk, both
10
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
token collections contain the same tokens or identifiers and the client
updates the server by telling it that the client token collection is current. See
Kadyk 12:45-52. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive because
it fails to explain sufficiently why Kadyk's updating the token collections of
the servers to match those of the client does not teach updating the value of
the first update identifier with that of the second update identifier as claimed.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Kadyk
teaches "at least in said first device, updating said value of said first update
identifier with said value of said second update identifier," as recited in
claim 16 and similarly recited in claims 28 and 31.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 16, 28, and 31. Appellants argue that dependent claims 17-19, 24,
27, 29, 30, 40, 41, 43, and 44 are patentable for the same reasons as their
respective parent independent claims. See App. Br. 18, 24. As such, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed
above in our analysis of claims 16, 28, and 31.
Claims 4--8, 14, and 15
Appellants argue that Kadyk fails to teach the disputed limitations of
claims 4-6 for the same reasons as independent claim 16, which recites
similar limitations. See App. Br. 19-29; see also Reply Br. 6-14.
Appellants' arguments that Kadyk fails to teach the disputed limitations of
claims 4-6 are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4-6.
Appellants argue that dependent claims 7, 8, 14, and 15, which depend from
dependent claim 6, are patentable for the same reasons as claim 6. See App.
Br. 18, 25. As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for
the reasons discussed above in our analysis of claim 6.
11
Appeal2015-004815
Application 10/291, 192
Claims 9, 10, 20--23, 42, and 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Doman, Kadyk, and SyncML
Appellants argue that dependent claims 9, 10, 20-23, 42, and 45,
which depend from dependent claim 6 and independent claims 16, 35, and
39, respectively, are patentable for the same reasons as claims 6, 16, 35, and
39. See App. Br. 29. As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these
claims for the reasons discussed above in our analysis of claims 6, 16, 35,
and 39.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 32, 33, 35-39, and
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Doman.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4-8, 14-19, 24, 27-31,
40, 41, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Doman and Kadyk.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9, 10, 20-23, 42, and 45
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doman, Kadyk, and
Sync ML.
DECISION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14-24, 27-33, and
35--46 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12