Ex Parte Szabo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2014

12200642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN SZABO
____________

Appeal 2012-003569
Specification 12/200,6421
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DEBORAH KATZ, JOHN G. NEW, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellant, the real parties in interest are Sony Corporation
and Sony Electronics, Inc. (Appeal Brief 3).

Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

2
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
All pending claims (1–20) were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0271600 A1; Nov. 30, 2006
(Goh). Examiner’s Answer 4.

DISCUSSION

The Claimed Invention
There are three pending independent claims. Independent claims 1
and 14 are apparatus claims and independent claim 9 is a method claim.
Dependent claims 2–8 and 19 depend from apparatus claim 1. Dependent
claims 10–13 and 20 depend from method claim 9. Dependent claims 15–18
depend from apparatus claim 14.
Independent apparatus claim 1 reads as follows:
An apparatus configured to synchronize data, the
apparatus comprising:

a first source configured to manage data;

a policy configured including one or more rules to manage
data synchronization between the first source and a second
source; and

a common interface between the policy, the first source, and
the second source, the common interface allowing multiple
policies and multiple sources to be used together to
synchronize data, wherein the policy does not need
knowledge of the data being managed by the first source,
and wherein the first source does not need knowledge of the
one or more rules of the policy.
Appeal Brief 14.
Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

3
Thus, claim 1 defines the invention as an apparatus comprising the following
elements: (1) a first source; (2) a policy; (3) a second source; and (4) a
common interface.
Besides claim 1, the Appellant presents specific arguments related
only to claim 5, which depends from claim 1. Appeal Brief 12–13.
With regard to the remainder of the claims, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented with regard to claim 1. In view of this, we direct our
discussion of the claims, except as specifically noted otherwise, to claims 1
and 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

The Section 102 Rejection
All the claims were rejected as anticipated by Goh.. With
respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Goh fails to disclose or suggest the
limitations of claim 1 reciting: (1) “a common interface between a policy
and first and second sources;” (2) “that the policy does not need knowledge
of the data being managed by the first source;” and (3) “that the first source
does not need knowledge of the rules of the policy.” Appeal Brief 10. With
respect to claim 5, the Appellant argues that Goh fails to disclose or suggest
“the limitations of claim 5.” Appeal Brief 12–13. We deem all other
potential arguments in support of patentability of the claims to be waived.

Claim 1
With regard to Appellant’s argument that Goh fails to teach or suggest
“a common interface between a policy and first and second sources,” we
disagree. The “common interface” is defined and discussed in the
Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

4
description of the invention in the Specification in paragraph 19 which
reads:
Sources 202 and policies 204 include an interface 206.
Interface 206 may be common among sources 202 and policies
204 that can be connected to each other. A common interface
means that each interface can be used to send signals that are
understood by the other interface 206. For example, the
commands used by interfaces 206 are known to each interface
206. In one example, a method to create an item is called by a
generic command, such as create(). When policy 204 wants a
source 202 to create an item, the command create() may be
used. Policy 204 does not need to know how the source
implements the create() command, but rather that the source
will create the item which may write to a storage 208 or send a
message over network 104 or some other action. Because of
common interface 206, customizing how to communicate
between the interfaces is not needed. Also, knowledge of what
data the source is managing is not needed by the policy and
knowledge of what policy is being enforced is not needed by
the source.
Specification 4–5 (emphasis added).

In the Final Rejection at 2–4 and in the Examiner’s Answer at 5–6 and 11-
12, Fig. 9 of Goh is cited as providing the relevant disclosure. Fig. 9 of Goh
shows 4 components ((Sync Orchestrator 104, Sync Scheduler 107, Policy
Manager 110 and Sync PlugIn 128) of the data synchronization controller
102 and lists signals that can be sent by one component to another
component and that will be understood by the other component. See also
Fig. 1. Appellant argues that these components are all within controller 102
and thus cannot teach the common interface between two sources and a
Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

5
policy. Appeal Brief 10–11. But, the disclosure of the invention in the
Specification is inconsistent with this argument.
In paragraph 15, sentences 3 and 4, the Specification states:
“[D]evice 102 may synchronize data within itself, that is, intra device. For
example, an application may synchronize data from a first source to a second
source that is found within device 102.” Specification 3. In paragraph 16,
sentence 4, the Specification states: “Sources 202 may be a set of code that
reads data from and/or writes data to another source 202, either inside or
outside of device 102.” Specification 4. Appellant acknowledges that
controller 102 includes policies in the following manner: “Controller 102
also includes policies by way of policy manager 110 and policies 112.”
Appeal Brief 10.
The embodiment shown in Fig. 5 of Appellant’s Specification also
contradicts this argument by Appellant. Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

6
Fig. 5 depicts two apparatus [102–1 and 102–2] each with a policy
[204–1 in 102–1 and 204–2 in 102–2] and a first source and a second source
[202–1 and 202–2 in 102–1 and 202–3 and 202–4 in 102–2] and a common
interface between the policy and the first source and the second source [206
in 202–1, 202–2 and 204–1 in 102–1 and 206 in 202–3, 202–4 and 204–2 in
102–2]. We, therefore, find that Goh does teach “a common interface
between a policy and first and second sources.”
With regard to Appellant’s argument that Goh does not teach or
suggest “that the policy does not need knowledge of the data being managed
by the first source,” we disagree. In paragraph 7, Goh teaches the use of
“predetermined policies.” In paragraph 8, Goh teaches that the use of these
predetermined policies “provides the ability to synch any data type.”
Further, the description of the invention in the Specification of the instant
application asserts that one of the advantages of using policies that do not
need knowledge of the data being managed (and sources that do not need
knowledge of the rules of the policy) is that “plug-and-play architecture”
may be used. In paragraph 40, the Specification says: “a plug-and-play
architecture is provided in which sources 202 and policies 204 may be
instantiated and configured to work together through common interface
106.” Specification 9. Goh teaches the use of plug-and-play architecture in
the context of synchronization apparatus. See paragraph 87 of Goh which
reads: “The synchronization controller 102 provides flexibility to allow for
plug-and-play of sync engines (e.g., relational and others), and support
standards, support multiple data types such as files, file-system and
relational data. Advantageously, this is performed by employing policies set
by system 330.”
Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

7
Goh teaches that sources need not have knowledge of the rules of the
policy to provide synchronization. As an example, in paragraph 35, Goh
teaches that the policy management system may use an “existing package”
for managing timing functions from multiple data sources. And, in
paragraph 42, Goh teaches that the sources (“data sync controller 102
components”) can use a common interface such as “java objects understood
by the other components” to synchronize data without the source needing
knowledge of the rules of the policy.
The Examiner also correctly points out in the Examiner’s Answer at
6–7 and 12–13 that the “wherein” clauses of claim 1 do not require the
presence of any additional structure in the apparatus. The “wherein” clauses
of claim 1 read “wherein the policy does not need knowledge of the data
being managed by the first source, and wherein the first source does not
need knowledge of the one or more rules of the policy.” These purported
limitations to this apparatus claim do not recite any structure.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. As Appellant has relied
solely on the patentability of claim 1 to support the patentability of claims 2–
4 and claims 6–20, our decision with regard to claim 1 applies to these
claims also and we affirm the rejection of these claims.
Claim 5
Appellant argues dependent claim 5 separately. Claim 5 reads as
follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the common interface
comprises:
a first interface for the first source;
Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

8
a second interface for the policy; and
a third interface for the second source.
Appeal Brief 14–15.
Appellant contends that Goh does not disclose a common interface
that includes interfaces for the policy and first and second sources. Appeal
Brief 12. In the Final Rejection at 4 and in the Examiner’s Answer at 8 and
13, paragraphs 7, 25 and 34 and Fig. 9 of Goh are cited as disclosing these
elements.
Paragraph 7 of Goh reads (emphasis added):
A system includes a data synchronization controller
which enables synchronization of data between a main
computer and one or more remotely disposed computer
elements. The controller includes an orchestrator which
responds to requests for data synchronization for a plurality of
components in accordance with predetermined policies
maintained by a policy management system. A synchronization
interface is controlled by the orchestrator in accordance with
the policies to select a synchronization engine to service
requests for synchronization from the orchestrator.

Paragraph 25 of Goh refers to “input/output interfaces”
implemented in hardware, software or combinations thereof. Paragraph 34
of Goh refers to “sync orchestrator 104, which provides interfaces for
communication, status and response for the other application components.”
Also, as discussed above, Fig. 9 of Goh discloses interfaces (components
that send commands that are understood by other components). Thus, we
find that Goh anticipates claim 5 and affirm its rejection.

Appeal 2012–003569
Application 12/200,642

9
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of all the pending claims (1–20)
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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

ELD