Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 15, 2021

2020004541 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021)

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.
14/621,851 02/13/2015 Jonathan David Perlow 1360F0055.2 1005
110828 7590 10/15/2021
Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC (1360)
2601 Weston Parkway
Suite 103
Cary, NC 27513
EXAMINER
SPARKS, JONATHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2021 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):
Docketing@kdbfirm.com
kpotts@kdbfirm.com
mfitzsimmons@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JONATHAN DAVID PERLOW, JASON CURTIS JENKS,
OLIVIA HSU BISHOP, THOMAS APOSTOLOS GEORGIOU, and
JEREMY DAVID FEIN,
____________________

Appeal 2020-004541
Application 14/621,851
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHNNY
A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Facebook, Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004541
Application 14/621,851

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a technique for synchronizing messages of
a sequential message reader. Abstract. Claim 9 is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below.
9. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor circuit on a messaging endpoint device
hosting a messaging application;
a network component operative on the processor circuit
to receive an incoming update at the messaging endpoint device
from a recipient update queue on a messaging server, the
incoming update comprising an incoming recipient sequence
number;
an inbox management component operative on the
processor circuit to:
add the incoming update to a message inbox on the
messaging endpoint device, the incoming update added to the
message inbox in an order determined by the incoming
recipient sequence number;
determine, based on the incoming recipient sequence
number, whether one or more additional updates are missing
from the message inbox on the messaging endpoint device;
apply the incoming update to a message cache of the
messaging application on the messaging endpoint device; and
apply the incoming update to a message database,
separate from the message cache, of the messaging application
on the messaging endpoint device; and
a display component operative on the processor circuit to
retrieve messages from the message cache rather than the
message database, and to display, in the messaging application,
messages contained in the message cache.

Appeal 2020-004541
Application 14/621,851

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sample (US 2014/0310365 A1), published Oct. 16,
2014, Mace (US 7,730,148 B1) issued June 1, 2010, and the Webopedia
definition of “cache.” Non-Final Act. 3–9.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 through 20.
Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 9 and 16. Appeal Br. 10–21. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Sample, Mace and the cited definition of cache
teaches applying an incoming update of the messaging application on the
endpoint device to both a message cache of the application and a message
databased as recited in independent claims 9 and 16.
The Examiner finds that Sample teaches applying an incoming update
to a storage location of a messaging application. Non-Final Act. 4, Answer
4. The Examiner finds that Sample is ambiguous as to whether the message
is applied to two locations, citing Sample’s discussion of the update being in
local storage and persistent storage. Non-Final 4–5, Answer 4–5 (citing

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 18,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Non-Final Office Action mailed June 18, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 31, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-004541
Application 14/621,851

4
Sample ¶¶161, 162, 191, and 192). The Examiner cites to Mace as teaching
a messaging application with two storage locations, local store and local
archive. Non-Final 5 (citing Mace Fig. 1, col 3, ll. 56–62, col 4, ll. 63–67,
col 5, ll. 1–18), Answer 4 (citing Mace Fig. 1). The Examiner relies upon
the definition of cache in Webopedia to teach that it is known that one of the
storage locations can be considered a cache. Non-Final Act. 6.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Each of the independent claims recites applying an incoming
update to both a message cache and an incoming database. We do not find
that there is sufficient evidence in Sample to support a finding that the
persistent memory discussed in the cited paragraphs is different from the
local storage, or that if they are different the update is applied to both. We
concur with the Examiner’s finding that Mace teaches two storage locations,
a local email store and an archive. Non-Final 5. We additionally note that
Mace does teach use of a cache in updating the archive (see e.g. col. 18, ll.
12–23). However, we do not find that Mace teaches that an incoming update
is applied to a cache and the archive, rather it discusses updates to the
archive come from the cache not the update. Further, we do not find that the
Examiner has cited sufficient evidence to demonstrate that combining the
teachings of Sample, which only supports a finding of applying an update to
one memory, with Mace’s teaching of having a local e-mail store and an
archive, such that an incoming update is applied to both. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 9,
16 and the claims which depend thereupon.
CONCLUSION
Thus we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9 through 20.
Appeal 2020-004541
Application 14/621,851

5

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–20 103 Sample, Mace,
Webopedia
9–20

REVERSED