Ex Parte Garrett et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 22, 201211427528 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ANDREW J. GARRETT, JAMES A. MARTIN, JR., and JEFFREY E. PRINCE ____________________ Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 24, and 25 (App. Br. 2). Claims 3 and 9-23 are canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a system for managing data received from multiple sources; wherein, when conflicting data values are received for a data element from the multiple sources, the system uses a conflict rule to determine which data value will be maintained as the main data value for the data element (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of managing data received from a plurality of sources, the method comprising: obtaining a multi-dimensional set of data from each of the plurality of sources, each multi-dimensional set of data including a common data element; and generating a main multi-dimensional set of data based on a combination of the sets of data, the generating including: obtaining a data value for the data element from each of the sets of data obtained from the plurality of sources; determining whether a conflict exists between the obtained data values; Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 3 using a conflict rule to determine a main data value for the data element in the main multi-dimensional set of data when the conflict exists; and storing a derivation record for the main data value for the data element in the main multi-dimensional set of data, the record including: the main data value, the data value received from each of the plurality of sources, and an identifier for the conflict rule. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hugh U.S. 2003/0137536 A1 July 24, 2003 Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 24, and 25stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hugh. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in finding that the Hugh teaches: 1. “storing a derivation record for the main data value for the data element in the main multi-dimensional set of data, the record including: the main data value, the data value received from each of the plurality of sources, and an identifier for the conflict rule” (claim 1, emphasis added); and 2. “modifying the conflict rule” and “determining a new main data value using the modified conflict rule” (claim 24, emphasis added) Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Hugh discloses a system that employs a graphical user interface to facilitate user interaction with highly flexible, associative matrices that enable users to conveniently organize digitally-stored “thoughts” (inter- related information in concert with natural thought processes) with an associative network of inter-relationships (Abstract). The method enables a number of different users to seamlessly manage, navigate, and share such matrices consisting of files and content stored both locally and remotely on digital information devices (¶¶ [0007] and [0008]). 2. Data can be retrieved from disparate data repositories (¶ [0088]) and stored in a repository as a matrix (¶ [0056]). 3. A server within the system is capable of receiving requests for data, detecting conflicts in which a second client has requested to modify data which another Client is already in the midst of modifying, and returning data or conflicts messages to Clients (¶ [0791]). In particular, the server can detect any conflicts between items, and determine which data item will win the conflict in each case; wherein, there are two types of conflicts: data items which differ, but bear the same identifier, and data items of diverse identities, but whose content is the same (¶ [0834]). For both types of conflicts, whether same-content or same-identifier (ID), the system may resolve the conflicts using predefined rules such as, a) master wins; b) slave wins; c) last date wins; d) branch to two separately identified items indicating the circumstances in which it was created (e.g. via thought name “Matched Thought-Created by Harlan Sep. 20, 2001”) (¶ [0843]). Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 5 4. When conflicts arise, the system determines which node or data item is the master and which node or data item is the slave that coincides with the master (¶ [0780]). Additionally, the system must make a determination of how to manage situations in which the modifications made by users offline logically conflict (id.). The Server and Client exchange modifications to the master/slave rules which can be set as absolutes or as orders of priority for governing conflicts (¶ [0831]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 24, and 25 Appellants contend that the “Examiner fails, inter alia, to show that Hugh discloses storing a derivation record for a main data value for a data element in a main multi-dimensional set of data, the record including: the main data value, a data value received from each of a plurality of sources, and an identifier for the conflict rule as claimed therein” (App. Br. 5). In particular, with respect to the Examiner’s claim interpretation, Appellants argue that the “the claimed derivation record expressly includes multiple data values” (App. Br. 6), a derivation record does not “refer[] to database records’” (App. Br. 7), and the “derivation record is clearly distinct from the main multi-dimensional set of data”(App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that “Hugh does not disclose anything with respect to storing the data retrieved from disparate data repositories in the matrix of Hugh” (App. Br. 8), but instead, Hugh “merely discusses determining which conflicting data item will win the conflict” and not a “conflict rule” (App. Br. 9). Finally, Appellants argue that Hugh “does not disclose storing any type of identifier for a conflict rule” (id.). Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 6 However, the Examiner finds that Hugh “discloses ‘storing data for [a] matrix, stored in repository’” and “determin[ing which] data item will win [a] conflict” (Ans. 9). The Examiner notes that “Hugh discloses that the ‘matrix [is] updated [wherein] data [is] stored for users’” (id.). The Examiner also finds that Hugh discloses that the system may “access only a portion of the matrix[;] in other words, [a] sub[-]matrix’” (id.). The Examiner notes that even though Appellants “argue that a derivation record is “at least 4 data elements,” “in the end it does not make any difference,” since “Hugh discloses, data (single data elements), data elements (multiple data elements), and matrixes (structure containing mxn data elements . . .)” (Ans. 10). In Reply Brief, Appellants contend that “the Examiner uses snippets of Hugh, which are taken from disparate portions of Hugh and removed entirely from the context in which they are used in Hugh to support the rejections” (Reply Br. 3). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “derivation record,” “main data value,” “data element,” “main multi-dimensional set of data,” “identifier,” and “conflict rule” means, includes, or represents other than that the main data value is determined by a conflict rule. The Specification is silent as to a definition of these terms with the exception of disclosure that a data element is a unique combination of data values (Spec. ¶ [0024]) and a conflict rule is a procedure for resolving a conflict (Spec. ¶ [0004]). Thus, Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 7 we give “storing a derivation record for the main data value for the data element in the main multi-dimensional set of data, the record including: the main data value, the data value received from each of the plurality of sources, and an identifier for the conflict rule” (claim 1) its broadest reasonable interpretation as saving data including data from different sources, data generated as a result of a rule applied to data from different sources, data identifying the rule, as is consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1. We note that the claim does not require that the saving of the data is restricted to any particular limitation, such as order, time, or space; only that the data is stored. Hugh discloses a system that stores a plurality of matrixes (matrices) having information from different users; wherein, the matrices are stored either locally or remotely on digital information devices (FF 1). In addition, data from different repositories can be stored as a matrix (FF 2). A server within the system is capable of receiving data from different users and detecting conflicts with data that has been modified by different users (FF 3). There are two types of conflict, same-content or same-ID, that the server detects for using predefined rules, such as a) master wins; b) slave wins; c) last date wins; d) branch to two separately identified items indicating the circumstances in which it was created (FF 3). We find that a matrix or matrices comprise a main multi-dimensional set of data retrieved from different sources that are stored. We also find that the predefined rules comprise procedures for resolving a conflict that are stored and denoted by identifiers: “master wins,” “slave wins,” “late date wins,” and “branch to two separately identified items.” Further, we find that the result of the predefined rule applied to the data supplied by different Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 8 users which is stored comprises the main data value. That is, we find that “storing a derivation record for the main data value for the data element in the main multi-dimensional set of data, the record including: the main data value, the data value received from each of the plurality of sources, and an identifier for the conflict rule” (claim 1) reads on Hugh’s system that stores data from different users, resolves data conflicts using predefined (stored) rules and stores the resultant of the rule applied to the data from the differing users. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hugh; and dependent claims 2, 4-8, and 25 (depending from claim 1), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claim 24 Appellants contend that the “Examiner fails, inter alia, to show that Hugh discloses modifying a [conflict] rule stored in a derivation record and determining a new main data value using the modified conflict rule” (App. Br. 9-10) since “Hugh only discloses that any of multiple ‘rules or options could be set as absolutes or as orders of priority for governing conflicts in synchronization’” (App. Br. 10). However, the Examiner finds that Hugh discloses “‘modifications [of] rules for governing conflict’” (Ans. 18). Appellants’ argument that Hugh does not disclose “modifying a [conflict] rule stored in a derivation record” is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim 24 (App. Br. 9-10). In particular, claim 24 does not recite that the conflict “rule is stored in a derivation record” as Appellants argue. Appeal 2010-002071 Application 11/427,528 9 Hugh discloses that when conflicts arise, the system uses master/slave rules to determine which node or data item is the master or the slave; wherein, the Server or the Client may modify these rules which are set as absolutes or orders of priority for governing conflicts (FF 4). We find that the master/slave rules comprise conflict rules and that the system determines master and slave nodes based upon these modified conflict rules. That is, we find that “modifying the conflict rule” and “determining a new main data value using the modified conflict rule” reads on Hugh’s system that stores modified master/slave rules and uses these modified rules to make new determinations of master and slave nodes. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hugh. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation