Ex Parte Stiegler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

12364806 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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.
12/364,806 02/03/2009 Marc D. Stiegler 82250636 4756
56436 7590 12/27/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
WILLIS, AMANDA LYNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC D. STIEGLER, ALAN H. KARP,
MARK S. MILLER, and TYLER J. CLOSE
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/3 64,8061
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a file sharing system, which
provides authorization-based security to control access to shared files,
monitors the shared files for changes, and propagates the changes according
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
to sharing relationships. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A file sharing system on a computer memory
comprising:
authorization-based security for issuing a Uniform
Resource Locator (URL) associated with a specific file residing
on a first computer, wherein that file is to be shared with at
least one user of a second computer, said URL authorizing
requests to said first computer to take action on said shared file;
a system for selectively transmitting said shared file and
said associated URL to said second computer; and
a synchronizer which uses said URL to receive and
transmit local and remote changes made to said shared file.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6—16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tewari et
al. (US 2003/0097564 Al; published May 22, 2003) (hereinafter “Tewari”)
and Ferrat et al. (US 2005/0055382 Al; published Mar. 10, 2005)
(hereinafter “Ferrat”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Tewari, Ferrat, and Begen (US
8,059,821 Bl; issued Nov. 15,2011).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tewari, Ferrat, and
Steen, III et al. (US 6,510,350 Bl; issued Jan. 21, 2003) (hereinafter
“Steen”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Tewari, Ferrat, and Meffert et al.
(US 2002/0059144 Al; published May 16, 2002) (hereinafter “Meffert”).
2
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the October 10, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2—21)
and (2) the July 6, 2015 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—7). We highlight and
address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Local and remote changes
Appellants argue the combination of Tewari and Ferrat fails to teach
or suggest “a synchronizer which uses [a] URL to receive and transmit local
and remote changes made to [a] shared file,” as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims 9 and 10. App. Br. 10—14; Reply Br. 3—9.
Appellants argue that in accordance with this limitation, changes to a shared
file can be local or remote (i.e., “if a user of [a] first computer makes
changes to [a] shared file, those changes are local with respect to the copy of
the shared file on the first computer and remote with respect to a copy of the
shared file on the second computer”). App. Br. 10. Appellants also assert
the claim language provides “[rjegardless of whether the changes originate,
locally or remotely, the claimed ‘synchronizer’ synchronizes the various
copies of the shared file by ‘use[ing the] URL.’” Id.
As to Tewari, Appellants argue it teaches “only the originating user
can make changes to the content and presumably would not want recipients
to alter the provided content.” Id. at 11 (citing Tewari 196). Specifically,
Appellants argue Tewari teaches (i) storing content at an origin site and
additional cached sites for increased access, and (ii) periodically refreshing
3
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
the copy of the content at the cached sites if the content is modified at the
origin site. Id. at 11—12 (citing Tewari || 94, 96). Appellants, thus, contend
that the changes to the content are only local to the origin site and there is no
teaching of reflecting at the origin site remote changes (e.g., changes made
at cache sites) — in other words, the synchronization is unidirectional from
the origin site to the cache sites. See id.
As to Ferrat, Appellants argue it does not teach using a URL to
receive and transmit local and remote changes to a shared file. App. Br. 13;
see also Reply Br. 6 (arguing whether Tewari teaches using a URL to
establish a synchronization transmission “is wholly irrelevant because the
URL is only being used to stream content, that is not subject to change, in
one direction”). Appellants also argue “the bi-directional synchronization
described by Ferrat is simply not applicable to the subject matter of Tewari”
because Tewari’s content provider would “not want its content being altered
or changed by viewers.” App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 7. Appellants, thus,
contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Tewari and
Ferrat’s teachings. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 8—9.
The Examiner finds the combination of Tewari and Ferrat teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 2—3. As to Tewari, the Examiner
finds it teaches hosting content (e.g., a file to share) on an origin site,
replicating the content (i.e., the shared file) on networked cache servers, and
synchronizing changes made to the content on the origin site with the
content on the cache servers to make the content available to end users.
Ans. 2 (citing Tewari 194). The Examiner also finds Tewari teaches using
URLs to receive the changed shared file from the remote origin site. See
Ans. 2 (citing Tewari || 95—96 (finding a cache server initiates a pull
synchronization request to pull remote changes to the shared content from
4
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
the origin site to synchronize cache data using a URL)); Final Act. 2—3
(citing Tewari || 64, 605, 610-12; Fig. 3). As to Ferrat, the Examiner finds
it teaches or suggests bidirectional synchronization. Ans. 3. Specifically,
the Examiner finds Ferrat teaches performing both pull and push
synchronization to allow for changes from both a hub server and its spokes
to be synchronized (e.g., local changes can be pushed to the server and
remote changes can be pulled to the local device). See id. (citing Ferrat
Tflf 89 (teaching “do[ing] a ‘push’ for a spoke to move all the changes to the
hub server and ... a ‘puli’ to synchronize the hub server and the spoke
database”), 147, 151); Final Act. 3^4 (citing Ferrat Fig. 2; 122). The
Examiner also notes Appellants attack the references individually, rather
than persuasively addressing what is taught by the combination. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we find Tewari teaches a synchronizer using URLs to receive
the changes from the remote origin site. See Tewari H 64, 94—96, 605, 610—
12; Fig. 3. We also find Ferrat teaches or suggests bidirectional
synchronization, including teaching pull and push synchronization of shared
content to allow for changes from both a hub server and its spokes to be
synchronized. See Ferrat Fig. 2; || 22, 89, 147, 151. We find Tewari and
Ferrat’s combined teachings teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants incorrectly
focus on the references individually rather than persuasively addressing their
combined teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(finding the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in light of the art’s combined
teachings). We also find Appellants’ arguments (e.g., App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 4—5) unpersuasive regarding Tewari being limited to unidirectional
5
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
synchronization (e.g., streaming copyrighted content providers wanting
viewer immutable content). See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332—33 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968))
(“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees
describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are
concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they
contain.”).
(2) Proactively broadcasts changes
Appellants argue the combination of Tewari and Ferrat, and Tewari in
particular, fails to teach or suggest “proactively broadcasting] changes to
said shared file in association with said URL to said second computer,” as
recited in claim 19. App. Br. 17—18 (emphasis added). Appellants argue
Tewari instead teaches updates are not distributed until the file is accessed.
Id. (citing Tewari || 97, 142).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination, and Tewari in
particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 6. Specifically,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, Tewari teaches how to “immediately
reflect[] in all caches in the network” changes to a file at the origin site, if a
user wants the changes to be immediately reflected. See Ans. 6 (citing
Tewari || 97, 142-44). We find such teachings teach or suggest, inter alia,
proactively broadcasting changes under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the phrase.
(3) URL comprises a randomly generated bit string
Appellants argue the combination of Tewari, Ferrat, and Begen fails
to teach or suggest that the “URL comprises a randomly generated bit
string,” as recited in claim 17. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 11. According to
Appellants, “[t]here is no showing on the record that a URL could include a
6
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
random bit string and have any application in the subject matter of Tewari
and Ferrat.” App. Br. 18. Appellants also argue “Tewari does not teach or
suggest that the secret key is or should be a randomly generated bit string.”
Reply Br. 11.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Tewari,
Ferrat, and Begen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Final Act.
13; Ans. 7. As to Tewari, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches the
URL is created using a secret key. Final Act. 13 (citing Tewari 1610). The
Examiner also finds, and we agree, Begen teaches or suggests encoding
indicia into the URL, such as a randomly generated bit string which can be
generated using a random key generator. See id. (citing Begen col. 7,11. 55—
57; col. 8,11. 66—67). We also agree with the Examiner and find “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. . . to generate
[Tewari’s] secret key using the techniques taught by Begen as it yields the
predictable results of generating a privately known key.” Final Act. 13; see
also Ans. 7.
We note Appellants again largely focus on the references individually
rather than persuasively addressing their combined teachings. Keller, 642
F.2d at 425. We also find Appellants’ assertion of impermissible hindsight
unsupported by record evidence.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 19. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2—8, 11—16, 18, and 20 for which Appellants did not provide separate
arguments for patentability.
7
Appeal 2016-000044
Application 12/364,806
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1—20.
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
8