Ex Parte Kern

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11050272 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT F. KERN
____________

Appeal 2011-009622
Application 11/050,272
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009622
Application 11/050,272

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-11 and 16-35, which are the only claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method to selectively provide information to one or more
computing devices, comprising the steps of:

providing an information storage and retrieval system comprising first
information, a first logical partition, and a second logical partition, wherein
said first information is disposed in said first logical partition;

receiving by said information storage and retrieval system from a first
customer a customer business policy specifying a time interval after which
data is made available to business partners;

receiving by said information storage and retrieval system from said
first customer a plurality of customer-defined data extraction algorithms;

based upon said customer business policy, forming by said processor
second information comprising an instantaneous point-in-time copy of said
first information;

forming by said processor a plurality of customer-specific datasets
from said second information using said plurality of customer-defined data
extraction algorithms;

migrating by said processor said plurality of customer-specific
datasets from said first logical partition to said second logical partition,
wherein one or more computing devices have access rights to said second
logical partition but not to said first logical partition.

Appeal 2011-009622
Application 11/050,272

3
Prior Art
Pothapragada US 6,389,432 B1 May 14, 2002
Micka US 2003/0158869 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
Wright US 2003/0172157 A1 Sept. 11, 2003
Markson US 6,714,980 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Murray US 7,007,048 B1 Feb. 28, 2006
(filed May 29, 2003)
Fujibayashi US 7,120,827 B2 Oct. 10, 2006
(filed May 7, 2002)
Nakayama US 7,124,258 B2 Oct. 17, 2006
(filed Feb. 3, 2004)
Kahn US 7,185,192 B1 Feb. 27, 2007
(filed Jul. 7, 2000)

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 20, 25, 27, 29, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, and
Micka.
Claims 3, 4, 21, 22, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and
Nakayama.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray,
Micka, and Fujibayashi.
Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Pothapragada.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Markson.

Appeal 2011-009622
Application 11/050,272

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “forming by said processor a plurality of customer-
specific datasets from said second information using said plurality of
customer-defined data extraction algorithms.” The Examiner finds
paragraphs 23-25 of Micka teaches this limitation. Ans. 9, 21-22. Appellant
contends Micka teaches copying all data from a primary system to a remote
system, but does not teach forming customer-specific datasets using a
plurality of customer-defined data extraction algorithms. Reply Br. 4-7.
We agree with Appellant for the reasons given in the Reply Brief. We
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent
claims 16 and 27 each contain a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1
for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11
and 16-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 20, 25, 27, 29, and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, and
Micka is reversed.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 21, 22, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and
Nakayama is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray,
Micka, and Fujibayashi is reversed.
Appeal 2011-009622
Application 11/050,272

5
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Pothapragada
is reversed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Markson is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk