Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2013

11255197 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
11/255,197 10/20/2005 Daniel Q. Chen AUS920050557US1 4642
48916 7590 08/12/2013
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
CHANG, JEFFREY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2013 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 DANIEL Q. CHEN, MICHAEL L. QUIGLEY,
AMAL A. SHAHEEN, and JOHN P. WOODS
____________

Appeal 2011-000148
Application 11/255,197
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-000148
Application 11/255,197

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to providing for information exchange
among different information management systems. Spec. ¶ [0001].
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:

1. A computer implemented method for organizing data
for access by two or more information management systems,
each of the information management system having an
organizational structure, comprising:
comparing the organizational structures of information in
a first information management system and a second
information management system;
creating in said first information management system an
organization proxy for said second information management
system organizational structure of information;
creating in said second information management system
an organizational proxy for said first information management
system organizational structure of information; and
making data content in both said first and second
information management systems accessible from either said
first or second information management systems according to
that system’s organizational structure.

Appeal 2011-000148
Application 11/255,197

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mendez (US 6,708,221 B1) and Huang (US 6,477,543
B1). Ans. 3-8.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mendez
and Huang teaches “creating in said first information management system an
organization proxy” and “creating in said second information management
system an organizational proxy,” as recited in independent claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mendez
and Huang teaches “making data content . . . accessible . . . according to
that system’s organizational structure,” as recited in independent claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.

1) First Issue
Appellants first argue that the claimed information management
system is a specific element stating “[t]hose with skill in the computing arts
should appreciate that the term ‘information management system’ refers to a
Appeal 2011-000148
Application 11/255,197

4
particular element that is more specific than a system.” Br. 15. Appellants
then provide examples of information management systems in Appellants’
Specification. Br. 15-16. However, as the Examiner correctly finds, the
claimed “information management system” is not limited to examples in
Appellants’ Specification and may comprise more than one computer (Ans.
8-9).
Regarding the claimed organization proxy created in the first
information management system, Appellants argue that Huang’s
synchronization proxy is not analogous to Appellants’ shadow proxy. Br.
16. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 recite “organization proxy” and “organizational
proxy,” but not a “shadow proxy.” The USPTO gives claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation. Appellants have not provided sufficient argument
or evidence to persuade us that Appellants’ Specification explicitly defines
either “organization proxy” or “organizational proxy.” Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Huang’s proxy is not analogous to
Appellants’ claimed proxy (Br. 16).
Additionally, Appellants argue that because Huang’s sync proxy has a
CPU, storage devices, and a main memory, it cannot describe an element
created in an information management system. Br. 16. However, since as
discussed supra we agree with the Examiner’s finding that an information
management system may comprise more than one computer (Ans. 8-9), we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Huang’s sync proxy does
not teach an element created in an information management system (Br. 16).
Furthermore, in addition to describing a sync proxy having a CPU and other
elements, Huang describes sync logic. Final Rejection 7 (citing Huang
Abstract ll. 12-14). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Huang
Appeal 2011-000148
Application 11/255,197

5
teaches “creating in said first information management system an
organization proxy,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited
in independent claims 8, 15, and 21.
Regarding the claimed organizational proxy created in said second
information management system, Appellants argue that Mendez is directed
to synchronization of data, whereas Appellants’ claimed subject matter is
directed to synchronization of hierarchical organizational structures rather
than merely data. Br. 17. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Mendez describes translating between formats, in particular a format used by
the client and a global format used by the global server. Ans. 9; see also
Ans. 3-4 (citing Mendez Fig. 1). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Mendez teaches “creating in said second information
management system an organizational proxy,” as recited in independent
claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21.

2) Second Issue
Appellants additionally argue that the synchronization of data between
Mendez’s format A and format B requires an intermediate step of translating
data into a third global format, which does not teach retrieving information
directly from the proxy, as is recited in Appellants’ claims. Br. 18. Here,
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 does not require that data be “directly” retrieved, but instead recites,
“making data content . . . accessible.” Furthermore, as the Examiner
correctly finds, Mendez describes that format A is synchronized with the
global format without an intermediate step. Ans. 9. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Mendez and Huang teaches
Appeal 2011-000148
Application 11/255,197

6
“making data content . . . accessible . . . according to that system’s
organizational structure,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 8, 15, and 21.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), and dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, not separately argued
(Br. 19). Therefore, we sustain that rejection.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mendez and Huang.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc