Ex Parte Armanino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2013

11130773 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

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.
11/130,773 05/17/2005 Frederick Armanino NW1050 4134
38516 7590 04/24/2013
AT&T Legal Department - SZ
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FREDERICK ARMANINO, ANTHONY MERRITT,
MENGFENG TSAI, and THERESA LEES
____________________

Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and
system of managing electronic data that includes managing data transported
to a server for processing and subsequent transmission to clients. The
method and system includes instructing the server to expect and process
certain data according to predefined parameters. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of managing data, the method comprising:

instructing a server to expect to receive electronic data from
a plurality of network nodes which periodically transmit
electronic data during a respective predefined interval for
receipt by the server such that the server expects to periodically
receive electronic data from each network node during the
predefined interval of the network node in advance of such data
being received by the server;

instructing the server to condition the expected data
according to predefined parameters in advance of such data
being received by the server, the predefined parameters
Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

3
associated with facilitating access to the expected data by one
or more clients; and

upon the server receiving data from one of the network
nodes during the predefined interval of the network node,
monitoring at the server when the predefined interval of the
network node expires in order for the server to determine that
all of the data received from the network node during the
predefined interval of the network node is expected data from
the network node, saving at the server the data received from
the network node in order for the server to determine as a
function thereof whether the data received from the network
node is either expected data from the network node or
unexpected data from the network node, automatically
conditioning at the server the expected data according to the
predefined parameters so as to facilitate access thereto by the
one or more clients, and transporting all of the expected data as
conditioned from the server to the one or more clients
immediately after being received and conditioned.

REFERENCES
White US 5,918,225 Jun. 29, 1999
Liu US 6,081,517 Jun. 27, 2000
Miller US 2001/0013057 A1 Aug. 9, 2001
Caldwell US 2002/0046286 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Wang US 6,434,197 B1 Aug. 13, 2002
Capps US 6,735,691 B1 May 11, 2004

Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell.
(Ans. 2.)
(2) Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Liu. (Final Rej. 7.)
1

(3) Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Wang. (Ans. 2.)
(4) Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and White. (Ans. 2.)
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Capps, Miller,
and Caldwell (App. Br. 6-8). Specifically, Appellants contend in Capps, a
source computer is interrogated for data by a server when a user requests
migration of data from the user to the server (App. Br. 6). According to
Appellants, the server expects to receive data when the user of the computer
provides the indication (App. Br. 6-7). Therefore, Appellants argue Capps

1
We note the Examiner appears to have inadvertently omitted the rejection
of claims 4 and 14 in the Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
(Ans. 2). However, the Examiner indicates the grounds of rejection set forth
in the Final Rejection are maintained (Ans. 2) and refers to these claims in
the Answer (Ans. 5). Therefore, we consider the rejection to be included in
the Grounds of Rejection.
Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

5
does not teach or suggest “the server expects to periodically receive data
during a predefined interval from the source computer (i.e., the node)” (App.
Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants additionally contend Capps does not teach
or suggest the source computer periodically transmitting data during the
predefined interval (App. Br. 7).
Appellants state Miller describes a node (server) waiting for a
predefined interval when expecting data from a second node and the second
node periodically transmitting the data such that the server periodically
expects to receive data from the node (App. Br. 7). However, according to
Appellants, the combination of the disclosures of Capps and Miller does not
teach the source computer periodically transmitting during a predefined
interval of the source computer in which predefined interval the server
expects to periodically receive data from the source computer (App. Br. 7).

Issue 1: Does the combination of Capps, Miller, and Caldwell teach
or suggest “instructing a server to expect to receive electronic data from a
plurality of network nodes which periodically transmit electronic data during
a respective predefined interval for receipt by the server such that the server
expects to periodically receive electronic data from each network node
during the predefined interval of the network node in advance of such data
being received by the server” as recited in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. We initially
note Appellants have not defined the terms “periodically” or “predefined
interval” in their Specification. Therefore, taking a broad, but reasonable
Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

6
interpretation in light of the Specification, we interpret “periodically” as
“from time to time” and “predefined interval” as any interval (a space of
time between events or states or a space between objects, units, points, or
states) which has been previously set.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Capps since the
server in Capps expects a response from the source computer in response to
a configuration profile setting (Ans. 4).
We next find Miller teaches processing tasks in a multiple computer
network that uses ordered messages requiring each node to process the same
task (protocol) (Abstract; pg. 1, [0009]). Specifically, Miller uses a protocol
which is defined in phases, each phase being defined so no node can both
send and receive a data message during the same phase of the protocol
(Abstract; pg. 3, [0040]; Figs. 7, 10 and 13). Therefore, the protocol is
defined in predefined intervals. Accordingly, Miller teaches network nodes
which periodically (from time to time) transmit electronic data during a
respective predefined interval (during the phase) for receipt by the server.
The receiving node (server) of Miller also works on the protocol
(Abstract; pg. 1, [0009]; pg. 3, [0038]; Fig. 7). Miller further teaches the
protocols can require sending of data including messages and ACKs
(acknowledge round)(Final Rej. 10; Abstract). An (ACK) occurs at the end
of each phase and serves as a signal to the server that the sender believes the
data message has been sent (Ans. 4; pg. 3, [0038]; see also Fig. 7). “[T]he
ACK round serves as a time benchmark for measuring when expected data
messages should be received if they were sent by the sender” (col. 3,
[0038](emphasis added)). Therefore, Miller teaches the server expects data
messages and if the ACK round occurs before receipt, can request action
Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

7
(e.g., re-sending of the message)(id.). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Miller teaches the server expects to receive electronic data from a plurality
of network nodes which periodically transmit electronic data during a
respective predefined interval (phases) for receipt by the server such that the
server expects to periodically receive electronic data from each network
node during the predefined interval (phase) of the network node in advance
of such data being received by the server (See e.g., Abstract; Ans. 4-5; Figs.
10 and 13; see also Final Rej. 10).
Appellants’ argument that since “Capps with Miller and Caldwell
expressly shun ‘timers,’ their proposed combination must logically be silent
to ‘periodically transmit[ting] electronic data during a respective
predefined interval,’” (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive since, as set forth
above, the terms “periodically” and “predefined interval” are not interpreted
to require timers. Further, we are also not persuaded by Appellants that
because Miller indicates a general preference for an alternative invention to
timers (i.e. use of an ACK round), the proposed combination must logically
be silent with respect to “periodically transmit[ting] electronic data during
a respective predefined interval,” (Reply Br. 2, 3). Indeed, since Miller
teaches a protocol that when a point is reached, one node requires a data
message from a second node and “the node that expects the data message
(the ‘receiver’) typically configures a timer to wait on the expected
message” (pg. 1, [0009] emphasis added), we again find Miller teaches the
disputed limitation.
Appellants’ Reply Brief introduces a new argument with respect to
claims 1 and 11 that Capps with Miller teaches away, modifies the principle
of operation, and render Capps unsatisfactory for its intended purposes
Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

8
(Reply Br. 4-6 and 9) and addresses claim 11independently (which
Appellants’ Appeal Brief argued concurrently with claim 1 (see App. Br. 6-
8)) (Reply Br. 6-9). Appellants have not explained why, nor is it apparent
that these arguments were necessitated by a new point in the Answer or any
other circumstance constituting “good cause” for its belated presentation.
See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010)
(“informative”2) (absent a showing of good cause, Board not required to
address argument in Reply Brief that could have been presented in the
principal Brief).
Thus, we will not consider Appellants’ new arguments as these
arguments were not raised in the principal brief or necessitated by the
Examiner’s Answer.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the Capps, Miller,
and Caldwell, respectively, teach or suggest the limitations as recited in
representative independent claims 1 and 11. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10,
12, 13, 15, and 19-20 were not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner
erred did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 4 and 14; claims 6 and 16; and claims 8 and 18
Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 4, 6, 8, 14, 16,
and 18 is not obvious due to their dependence from claims 1 and 11,
respectively (App. Br. 8-9). As set forth above in Issue 1, we conclude the

2
The “informative” status of this opinion is noted at the following Board
website: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp.
Appeal 2013-003169
Application 11/130,773

9
combination of the teachings and suggestions of Capps, Miller, and Caldwell
render the invention as recited in claim 1 and 11 obvious. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 14, claims 6
and 16; and claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Liu; Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Wang; and
Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and White, respectively.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15, and 19-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, and Caldwell
is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Liu is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and Wang is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Capps, Miller, Caldwell, and White is affirmed.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD