Ex Parte Takagi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2014

10699102 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte SHUICHI TAKAGI,
CRAIG A WILLIS, and ROBERT L. CORDINGLEY
__________

Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
apparatus, medium, and method for synchronously transferring an amount of
local data from a local data storage medium to a remote data storage medium
via a communications link having an available bandwidth. The Examiner
rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Parties in Interest as Sony
Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. (See App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“Local home- or office-based personal computer (‘PC’) systems may
share data with remote computers in a variety of manners, via a variety of
networks” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0003). The Specification teaches that the “typical local
PC client, however, has . . . limited-bandwidth communication link to any
remote data storage medium. As such, the local PC may be unable to
concurrently perform multiple processing-intensive tasks . . . reducing the
convenience of an online data storage service for a PC user” (Spec. 2 ¶
0005).
The Claims
Claims 1-14 and 24-27 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A method for synchronously transferring an amount
of local data from a local data storage medium to a remote
data storage medium via a communications link having an
available bandwidth, the local data storage medium
associated with a local computer system having a local
processor sequentially responsive to a plurality of local
computer programs, the remote data storage medium
associated with a remote computer system non-redundant of
the local computer system and having a remote processor,
the method comprising:
evaluating local user conditions associated with
transfer of the local data;
based on the currently available bandwidth and the
amount of local data, approximating a transfer time for the
local data;
determining a status of the local processor, wherein
the determining step includes determining if the local
processor has reduced activity or is idle;
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

3
based on the approximated transfer time, the local
user conditions, and the status of the local processor,
selecting a time of day at which to transmit the local data to
the remote data storage medium; and
automatically arranging transfer of the local data to
the remote data storage medium via the communications
link at the selected time of day.

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-14, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Carmel,2 Grambihler,3 and Miller4 (Ans. 4-15).
B. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Carmel, Grambihler, Miller, and Roberts5 (Ans. 15-16).
C. The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Carmel, Grambihler, Miller, and Knox6 (Ans. 16-17).
D. The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Carmel, Grambihler, Miller, and Quinet7 (Ans. 17-19).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carmel, Grambihler, and Miller
The Examiner finds that Carmel teaches
[A] computer-implemented method for synchronously
transferring an amount of local data from a local data
storage medium (i.e. computer 34, Figs. 2, 4; the
transmitting computer, col. 2, lines 51-59) to a remote data
storage medium (i.e. Server 36, computers 30, Figs. 2, 4;
clients, col. 2, lines 51-50) via a communications link

2 Carmel et al., US 6,389,473 B1, issued May 14, 2002.
3 Grambihler et al., US 6,560,655 B1, issued May 6, 2003.
4 Miller et al., US 5,920,701, issued Jul. 6, 1999.
5 Roberts et al., US 6,920,110 B2, issued Jul. 19, 2005.
6 Knox et al., US 2002/0083124 A1, published Jun. 27, 2002.
7 Quinet et al., US 2005/0240940 A1, published Oct. 27, 2005.
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

4
having an available bandwidth . . . based on the
currently available bandwidth (i.e. data rate, col. 5, lines
3-14; the available data rates of the open links, col. 9, lines
31-48) and the amount of local data (i.e. The sizes of the
files, col. 9, lines 31-49), approximating a transfer time
[for the local data]

(Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds that Carmel further teaches determining
local processor status, including reduced activity or idle of the local
processor (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that “Carmel does not specifically
state the term ‘evaluating local user conditions associated with transfer of
the local data’” (Ans. 7).
The Examiner finds that Grambihler teaches “automatic
synchronization of local and remote electronic mail messages on each logon,
schedule an automatic synchronization of local files with network database
files every Thursday at 11:00 PM, and schedule a synchronization of
subscriptions during idle times” (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that Miller
teaches “‘selecting a time’” (Ans. 9).
The Examiner finds it obvious to
[S]chedule for data transmission from the content sources to
the replicated servers in view of Miller (col. 6, lines 8-34),
as doing so would give the added benefit of managing how
the content can be distributed by many content providers so
that the distributions do not overwhelm network bandwidth,
and how can multicast addresses be allocated without
conflict among the various content sources as taught by
Miller

(Ans. 9).
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

5
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Carmel, Grambihler, and Miller
render claims 1 and 13 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Carmel teaches “a transmitting computer generates a data
stream and broadcasts the data stream via a network server to a plurality of
clients” (Carmel, col. 2, ll. 1-4).
2. Carmel teaches that “the transmitting computer and the clients
monitor the uploading and downloading of data to and from the server,
respectively, in order to determine the amount of time required to convey
each slice and to verify that the slices are conveyed at a sufficient rate”
(Carmel, col. 2, ll. 52-56).
3. Carmel teaches
[T]he transmitting computer opens the plurality of links such
that the data rates of the links taken together are sufficient to
upload the sequence at the upload rate generally equal to the
data rate. Further preferably, the transmitting computer
monitors the data rates of the links and opens a new link in
place of one of the links whose data rate is lower than a
predetermined level.

(Carmel, col. 5, ll. 7-14.)
4. Carmel teaches
Periodically, client 30 makes an assessment of the rate
of data transfer over the link from the server and, if
necessary, changes the quality level accordingly. For
example, if the rate is low, such that time stamps 59 indicate
that the slices need to be played as fast as or faster than they
are being received, the client will preferably select a lower
quality level if one is available. On the other hand, if the
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

6
rate is substantially higher than what is needed to receive the
successive slices on time, the client may select a higher
quality level to take advantage of the available bandwidth.
Preferably, upper and lower data rate thresholds, or
watermarks, are set dynamically in response to the data rate
and are used in determining when a new quality level should
be selected.

(Carmel, col. 11, ll. 9-22.)
5. Carmel teaches that on “the other hand, if it is determined that
the upload time for file 42 (or a subsequent file) is substantially shorter than
duration T1, the duration of subsequent files may be extended, and/or the
compression ratio may be decreased, so as to take better advantage of the
available bandwidth” (Carmel, col. 12, ll. 13-17).
6. Carmel teaches that “the time required to upload file 42 is
measured and compared to T1 at the same time as file 44 (slice 2) is being
encoded and prepared. Responsive to this measurement of upload time, the
duration of subsequent slices, for example, times T3 and T4 for files 46 and
48, respectively, is adjusted” (Carmel, col. 11, l. 67 to col. 12, l. 5).
7. Carmel teaches “a time-out indication will be received
[regarding link 60] . . . [p]referably, a ‘socket’ opened for link 60 by a
WINSOCK program running on computer 34 is simply reinitialized to open
link 70” (Carmel, col. 12, ll. 48-54).
8. Grambihler teaches
The synchronization manager 60 may support user-
scheduled automatic synchronizations, by providing a
schedule dialog and wizard 64 (FIG. 2) that include user
dialogs for showing and configuring logon synchronization
preferences, logoff synchronization preferences, idle
synchronization preferences and scheduled
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

7
synchronizations. By way of example, a particular user may
schedule an automatic synchronization of local and remote
electronic mail messages on each logon, schedule an
automatic synchronization of local files with network
database files every Thursday at 11:00 PM, and schedule a
synchronization of subscriptions during idle times. A set of
interfaces may also be provided whereby handlers can set up
schedules outside of the user interface of the
synchronization manager 60.

(Grambihler, col. 9, ll. 25-38.)
9. Miller teaches that:
[T]he scheduling of data transmission form [sic] the content
sources 12, 14 to the replicated servers 16, 18, 20
commences in step 100 with the scheduler 10 receiving
signals via the network from the content sources 12, 14. The
signals notify the scheduler 10 of the existence of data, as
well as the transfer parameters of the content source 12, 14.
An example of a transfer parameter is the desired delivery
time. The delivery time can be a randomly occurring time
or a periodically occurring time (e.g., eight o’clock a.m.
daily, twelve o’clock a.m. on the first day of every month).
The desired delivery time is typically set by the content
sources 12, 14, and could represent the time when the
replicated servers 16, 18, 20 require data updates. For
example, if a content source 12, 14 provides news stories,
the replicated servers 16, 18, 20 will require updates on an
hourly or a daily basis. Similarly, if a content source 12, 14
provides an on-line magazine, the replicated servers 16, 18,
20 will require updates on a weekly or monthly basis.
Therefore, the content source 12, 14 will set a desired
delivery time depending on the frequency at which an
update is needed. The central processor 30 at each content
source 12, 14 is preferably configured to transmit a request
signal at a time prior to the desired delivery time, thereby
giving the scheduler 10 enough time to receive the request
signal, make appropriate determinations, and notify the
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

8
content source 12, 14 as to whether the request can be
accommodated.

(Miller, col. 6, ll. 8-34.)
Principles of Law
The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that “the [obviousness]
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Analysis
Carmel teaches a method of transmitting data from a local computer
to a remote server with a remote processor (FF 1-2) comprising the steps of:
evaluating local transfer conditions where the “transmitting computer
monitors the data rates of the links” (Carmel, col. 5, ll. 11-12; FF 3);
approximating a transfer time based on bandwidth and data, teaching
“the time required to upload file 42 is measured . . . [o]n the other hand, if it
is determined that the upload time for file 42 (or a subsequent file) is
substantially shorter than duration T1, the duration of subsequent files may
be extended, and/or the compression ratio may be decreased, so as to take
better advantage of the available bandwidth” (Carmel, col. 11, l. 67 to col.
12, l. 17; FF 6-7);
determining a status of the local processor’s activity where “a time-
out indication will be received [regarding link 60] . . . [p]referably, a
‘socket’ opened for link 60 by a WINSOCK program running on computer
34 is simply reinitialized to open link 70” (Carmel, col. 12, ll. 48-54; FF 7).
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

9
The Examiner acknowledges that Carmel does not teach evaluating
local user conditions for data transfer nor does Carmel teach selecting a time
for data transfer (Ans. 7-9).
Grambihler teaches “a particular user may schedule an automatic
synchronization of local and remote electronic mail messages on each logon,
schedule an automatic synchronization of local files with network database
files every Thursday at 11:00 PM, and schedule a synchronization of
subscriptions during idle times” (Grambihler, col. 9, ll. 25-38; FF 8). Thus,
Grambihler teaches user conditions such as “idle time” as well as the
concept of arranging the time of data transfer based upon specific conditions
impacting the transfer (FF 8).
Miller teaches “to transmit a request signal [for data transmission] at a
time prior to the desired delivery time, thereby giving the scheduler 10
enough time to receive the request signal, make appropriate determinations,
and notify the content source 12, 14 as to whether the request can be
accommodated” (Miller, col. 6, ll. 28-34; FF 9). Miller further teaches that
“a transfer parameter is the desired delivery time” (Miller, col. 6, ll. 14-15;
FF 9). Thus, Miller teaches that the data transfer, even when set at a desired
time, is related to whether conditions permit the transfer (FF 9).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that the ordinary artisan would have found it
obvious to modify Carmel’s data transfer process to arrange data transfer
based on user conditions such as Grambihler’s “idle time” of the computers
involved (FF 8), Miller’s desired delivery times (FF 9), and Carmel’s
teaching of dynamically responding to bandwidth (FF 3-6). Such a
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

10
combination is merely a “predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that “Carmel does not teach (or even suggest) a
method that “selects a time of day to transmit local data to the remote data
storage medium” (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that “Grambihler
does NOT TEACH OR EVEN SUGGEST selecting a time of day in which
local data will be transmitted to a remote storage medium, based upon ALL
THREE OF THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS RECITED IN THE CLAIMS”
(App. Br. 9).
We are not persuaded. While we agree that Carmel does not teach
selection of a “time of day” for data transfer, Carmel does teach that
bandwidth is a consideration for data transfer (FF 3-7). Grambihler
expressly teaches scheduling synchronization “every Thursday at 11:00 PM”
(FF 8), which is reasonably interpreted as a “time of day.” Further,
Grambihler teaches that subscriptions are synchronized during “idle times”
(FF 8), which is reasonably interpreted as based on local user conditions and
processor status. Thus, the combination of Carmel’s teaching of bandwidth
(i.e., transfer time) (FF 4) along with Grambihler’s teaching of “time of day”
and “idle time” (FF 8) reasonably renders it obvious to the ordinary artisan
to transfer data to maximize bandwidth at times of day of when the
processors are idle (FF 3-8).
Appellants contend that “Carmel very specifically teaches away from
any such modification-/combination of teachings -Carmel is specifically
directed to 'REAL-TIME broadcasting” (App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

11
We are not persuaded. A teaching away requires a reference to
actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s
mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching
away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”).
Appellants do not identify, and we do not find, any teaching in Carmel
which criticizes or discourages the use of timed data transfer.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
Carmel, Grambihler, and Miller render claims 1 and 13 obvious.
B.-C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants do not separately argue the claims in these obviousness
rejections. Instead, Appellants argue that Roberts, Knox, or Quinet do not
teach the “time of day” requirements of claims 1 and 13. Having affirmed
the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 13 over Carmel, Grambihler, and
Miller, we also find that the further combinations with Roberts, Knox, or
Quinet render the remaining claims obvious for the reasons given by the
Examiner (see Ans. 15-19).
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Carmel, Grambihler, and Miller.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2-
8, 10-12, 14, 24, and 25, as these claims were not argued separately.
Appeal 2011-011731
Application 10/699,102

12
We affirm the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Carmel, Grambihler, Miller, and Roberts.
We affirm the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Carmel, Grambihler, Miller, and Knox.
We affirm the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Carmel, Grambihler, Miller, and Quinet.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc