Ex Parte Garrett et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2012

11427528 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2012)

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