Ex Parte Sharp et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 201713233830 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/233,830 09/15/2011 Kathleen Sharp GB920100063US1 6528 140440 7590 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 EXAMINER KIM, PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patdocket@winstead.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KATHLEEN SHARP, COLIN C. STONE, and JOSEPH R. WINCHESTER Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final rejection of claims 1—21, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to detecting and displaying potentially volatile data. Claims 1 and 7 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for detecting and displaying potentially volatile data, the method comprising: storing metadata corresponding to data in a data store; retrieving a first subset of data from said data store; retrieving a first subset of said metadata corresponding to said first subset of data from said data store', retrieving a second subset of data from said data store; retrieving a second subset of said metadata corresponding to said second subset of data from said data store', comparing said first and said second subsets of said metadata; and responsive to said comparing, varying, by a processor, an indicator associated on a display with saidfirst subset of data or said second subset of data to indicate an inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata. 7. The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: responsive to a user selection to perform a clear and refresh operation, resetting said metadata corresponding to said data in said data store. 2 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 Claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown (US 2002/0194205 Al; publ. Dec. 19, 2002) and Wolf (US 2006/0015539 Al; publ. Jan. 19, 2006). Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown, Wolf, and Bauer (US 5,870,759; iss. Feb. 9, 1999). ANALYSIS §103 Rejection—Brown and Wolf Claims L 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 7) that the combination of Brown and Wolf would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “retrieving a first subset of said metadata corresponding to said first subset of data from said data store.” The Examiner found that the client metadata of Brown, having a client ID (CID), corresponds to the limitation “retrieving a first subset of said metadata corresponding to said first subset of data from said data store.” (Non-Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner. Brown relates to a “synchronization application [that] is used to synchronize the clients and server, synchronizing metadata and selected files.” (Abstract.) Brown explains that “[i]n an embodiment of the invention, the client SA [(Synchronization Application)] initiates synchronization on a fixed time interval.” (| 28.) Figure 1 of Brown illustrates “a server [105] with several clients [130 and 135] accessing files stored on a server SFS [(Synchronization File System) 110] on the server.” 3 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 (| 29.) Brown explains that “[t]he client SA synchronizes with the server by synchronizing the client metadata with the server metadata” and “[t]he client metadata has both a client and SID because a new file or directory is not assigned a SID until the file is uploaded or the directory is created on the server.” (| 63.) Because Brown explains that the synchronization of client metadata is performed by identifying only new files or directories, rather than client metadata for all files and directories, Brown teaches the limitation “retrieving a first subset of said metadata corresponding to said first subset of data from said data store.” Appellants argue that “[tjhere is no language in the cited passage [of paragraph 79] that teaches retrieving a first subset of the metadata stored in the data store” (App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis omitted)) but “[ijnstead, Brown teaches that the SSD includes the metadata item for the file or directory” (id. at 10). Similarly, Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner has not shown that the client metadata or server metadata, as discussed in paragraph [0063] of Brown, which the Examiner now appears to assert corresponds to the claimed first subset of the metadata.” (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 7.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Brown explains that during synchronization of client metadata, new files or directories are identified, rather than client metadata for all files and directories, and accordingly, Brown teaches the limitation “retrieving a first subset of said metadata.” (163.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown and Wolf would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “retrieving a first subset of said metadata corresponding to said first subset of data from said data store.” 4 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11—13; see also Reply Br. 8—9) that the combination of Brown and Wolf would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “retrieving a second subset of said metadata corresponding to said second subset of data from said data store.” The Examiner found that the synchronization of Brown, in which the client compares the CSD (client synchronization data) with the SSD (server synchronization data) to identify any changes on the server, corresponds to the limitation “retrieving a second subset of said metadata corresponding to said second subset of data from said data store.” (Non-Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 4—5.) We agree with the Examiner. Brown explains that during synchronization between the client and server, “the client compares the CSD [(client sync data)] with the SSD [(server sync data)] to identify any changes on the server that the client is lacking” (| 111) and “the client checks to see if the SSD includes a metadata item for the SID” (| 115). Because the client of Brown identifies changes to the server that the client is lacking, rather than the entire contents of server, and the SSD includes metadata items for the SID, Brown teaches the limitation “retrieving a second subset of said metadata corresponding to said second subset of data from said data store.” Appellants argue that “the Examiner is citing to the same element in Brown (the metadata item in the SSD) as corresponding to both the claimed first and second subsets of metadata, which is impermissible.” (App. Br. 12.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cited to the client metadata of a new file or directory for teaching the limitation “first subset of 5 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 said metadata” and cited to the SSD having a metadata item for the SID for teaching the limitation “first subset of said metadata.” (Ans. 4.) Appellants further argue that “there is no language in the cited passage [paragraph 111] that teaches retrieving a second subset of the metadata (Examiner asserts that the SSD metadata item for the SID corresponds to the claimed second subset of the metadata) corresponding to the second subset of data from the data store.” (App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 9.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “[t]here is no language in the cited passage [paragraph 114] that teaches retrieving a second subset of the metadata from the data store,” but “[i]nstead, Brown simply teaches that the client updates the metadata for the item in the client metadata.” (App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 9.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Brown explains that the client identifies changes to the server the client is lacking, rather than the entire contents of the server, and accordingly, Brown teaches the limitation “retrieving a second subset of said metadata.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown and Wolf would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “retrieving a second subset of said metadata corresponding to said second subset of data from said data store.” We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6—9; see also Reply Br. 2—6) that the combination of Brown and Wolf would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “responsive to said comparing, varying, by a processor, an indicator associated on a display with said first subset of data or said second subset of 6 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 data to indicate an inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata.” The Examiner found that the flags of Brown, which indicates fields of metadata items to be synchronized, correspond to the limitation “said first subset of data or said second subset of data to indicate an inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata.” (Non-Final Act. 4.) The Examiner also found that Table 2 of Wolf, which compares pairs of conflicting records, corresponds to the limitation “responsive to said comparing, varying, by a processor, an indicator associated on a display.” (Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 2—3.) In particular, the Examiner stated that “Wolf discloses that the display of ‘Client 1 ’ or ‘Client 2’ (i.e. the indicator) in the dialog box is in response to the identification of a conflict (i.e. responsive to said comparing).” (Non- Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious ... to improve the prior art of Brown with that of Wolf for the predictable result of a synchronization system wherein inconsistent data subsets may be indicated with indicator within a dialog box as needing synchronization.” (Non-Final Act. 4.) We agree with the Examiner. Brown further explains that “flags [identify] metadata items with changes that need to be pushed to the server” and that “additional flags that are used to manage the synchronization process.” (1 62.) Wolf relates to a “synchronization agent to synchronize data records among two or more clients.” (Abstract.) As an example, “different synchronization operations may be defined based upon the content of data records themselves, by records’ time of creation or editing or by records’ status.” (121.) Figure 3 of Wolf illustrates method 300, in which “a 7 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 conflict is identified between data records on multiple clients” during synchronization, “displaying] field contents of the conflicting records” and “queries an operator to select fields that contain proper data values for synchronization.” (| 30.) Figure 4 of Wolf illustrates a dialog box that permits conflict resolution (| 10) for conflicting data records in columns labeled “In SAP Business One”, “In MS Outlook”, and “Final Result.” Table 2 of Wolf includes exemplary data columns “Client 1” and “Client 2,” such that “[a]n operator may identify fields that possess correct data as shown in the ‘selection’ column” (| 31). Because data columns “Client 1” and “Client 2” in Table 2 of Wolf (or similarly, data columns “In SAP Business One” and “In MS Outlook” in Figure 4) are provided as part of a synchronization between conflicting data records, Wolf teaches the limitation “responsive to said comparing, varying, by a processor, an indicator associated on a display.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the display of Wolf, for displaying data columns of conflicting client data, with the known synchronization application of Brown, for synchronizing metadata and files between clients and a server, would improve Brown by providing the advantage of visually selecting proper data values for conflict resolution. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Alternatively, the combination of Brown and Wolf is nothing more than incorporating the known display of Wolf, for displaying data columns of client data, with the 8 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 known synchronization application of Brown, for synchronizing metadata and files between clients and a server, to yield predictable results. See id. (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 4) that modifying Brown to include the known display of Wolf, for displaying data columns of client data, would have been obvious. First, Appellants argue that “[tjhere is no language in the cited passages of Brown and Wolf that teaches responsive to said comparing” and “does not relate to comparing the first and second subsets of the metadata.” (App. Br. 6 (emphases omitted).) In particular, Appellants argue that [wjhile Wolf teaches the aspect of records containing data (e.g., full name) that is in conflict with one another and having the operator select the correct data to be placed in a final record, such comparing relates to comparing the data (e.g., full name, company, job title, address) in each of the records. (Id.) However, the Examiner cited to Brown, rather than Wolf, for teaching the limitations “first subset of said metadata” and “second subset of said metadata.” (Non-Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 4—5). Moreover, because Wolf explains that “a conflict is identified between data records on multiple clients” during synchronization and “displaying] field contents of the conflicting records” (130) (e.g., Figure 4 or Table 2), such display field is “responsive to . . . comparing” conflicting data records. Second, Appellants argue that “[tjhere is no indicator being varied in the display of these conflicting data records” because “Wolf is simply presenting data, such as the data (e.g., address, full name, telephone number) in these records” and “Wolf is not varying the display of such data as displayed in Figure 4 as alleged by the Examiner.” (App. Br. 7; see also 9 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 Reply Br. 4—6.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the conflicting data records in columns “Client 1” and “Client 2” from Table 2 of Wolf (or similarly, data columns “In SAP Business One” and “In MS Outlook” in Figure 4) are “varying” as the data records are edited, for example. (See 121.) Thus, the claim limitation “an indicator associated on a display” is broad enough to encompass Table 2 or Figure 4 of Wolf, which compares two columns of conflicting data records. Third, Appellants argue that “Brown only teaches that this metadata includes flags used in the synchronization process” and “[tjhese flags are only used to identify metadata items that need to be pushed to the server” but, “[tjhere is no language in Brown that would suggest that such flags are used to indicate an inconsistency between the CSD metadata item and the SSD metadata item.” (App. Br. 9.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Brown explains that “additional flags ... are used to manage the synchronization process” (161) and such synchronization of the clients and server includes synchronizing metadata (Abstract). Last, Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner’s reasoning [‘for the predictable result of a synchronization system wherein inconsistent data subsets may be indicated with indicator within a dialog box as needing synchronization’] is insufficient to establish aprima facie case of obviousness in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21.” (App. Br. 20.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, as discussed previously, the combination of Brown and Wolf is based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in the prior art. In particular, Wolf provides the ability to visually select proper data values for conflict resolution. (See Fig. 3; see also 130.) 10 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown and Wolf would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “responsive to said comparing, varying, by a processor, an indicator associated on a display with said first subset of data or said second subset of data to indicate an inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 9 and 16, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 10—11) that the combination of Brown and Wolf would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 3, which includes the limitation “wherein said inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata comprises a time difference.” The Examiner found that the time value of Brown, which is passed to the server and used to arbitrate synchronization conflicts, corresponds to the limitation “wherein said inconsistency between said first subset of metadata 11 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 and said second subset of metadata comprises a time difference.” (Non- Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 6—7.) We agree with the Examiner. As discussed previously, Brown relates to a “synchronization application [that] is used to synchronize the clients and server, synchronizing metadata and selected files.” (Abstract.) In particular, Brown explains that “the client SA [(synchronization application)] initiates synchronization on a fixed time interval” and “that the client SA can use any scheduling algorithm to initiate synchronization.” (128.) Brown also explains that one of the sync fields in the server metadata (| 43) includes “client change time” in which “[t]he client SA passes this value [of client change time] when it pushes the rename change to the server” such that “[t]he server uses this field to arbitrate synchronization conflicts in favor of the most recent change.” (| 46.) Because Brown explains that the synchronization application is used to synchronize the clients and server either at a fixed or scheduled time interval, and one of the sync fields for such synchronization application includes “client change time,” Brown teaches the limitation “wherein said inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata comprises a time difference.” Appellants argue that “[n]either is there any language in the cited passage [paragraph 46] that teaches that the inconsistency between the first subset of metadata and the second subset of metadata” but “[i]nstead, Brown teaches that the time of the client native system event that resulted in the change to the server state identified by the FSI field is normalized to server time to account for the difference in time between the client machine and the server.” (App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 10—11.) However, as discussed previously, in the context of the synchronization application of Brown, the 12 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 sync fields for such synchronization application that includes “client change time” teaches the limitation “wherein said inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata comprises a time difference.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown and Wolf would have rendered obvious dependent claim 3, which includes the limitation “wherein said inconsistency between said first subset of metadata and said second subset of metadata comprises a time difference.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to dependent claim 3, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 3. Claims 6, 13 and 20 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 17—18; see also Reply Br. 13—16) that the combination of Brown and Wolf would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 6, which includes the limitation “wherein said indicator associated on said display with said first subset of data or said second subset of data comprises one of a color coding, a greyscale coding or a clock graphic.” The Examiner found that the flag of Wolf corresponds to the limitation “wherein said indicator associated on said display with said first subset of data or said second subset of data comprises one of a color coding, 13 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 a greyscale coding or a clock graphic.” (Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 7.) In particular, the Examiner found that when “said ‘expanded’ flags are displayed on a display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that said flag would read upon a ‘greyscale coding’. . . in that said flag would be visually available on a display.” (Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner. As discussed previously, Brown further explains that “flags [identify] metadata items with changes that need to be pushed to the server” and that “additional flags that are used to manage the synchronization process.” (1 62.) Moreover, Figure 4 of Wolf illustrates a dialog box that permits conflict resolution (| 10) for conflicting data records in columns labeled “In SAP Business One,” “In MS Outlook,” and “Final Result.” Table 2 of Wolf includes exemplary data columns “Client 1” and “Client 2,” such that “[a]n operator may identify fields that possess correct data as shown in the ‘selection’ column.” (131.) Figure 4 of Wolf illustrates a screen shot of an exemplary dialog box (110), such dialog box being presented in black, white, and grey (see Fig. 4). Thus, the combination of Brown and Wolf, in which the flag of Brown identifies metadata items for synchronization, is incorporated into Figure 4 of Wolf, teaches the limitation “wherein said indicator associated on said display with said first subset of data or said second subset of data comprises one of... a greyscale coding.” In particular, incorporating the flag of Brown into the dialog box, as illustrated in Figure 4 of Wolf, would necessarily result in such flag having a “greyscale coding” in order to be visible against a white or grey background. Appellants argue that “Wolf simply teaches presenting data (e.g., full name, company, telephone, address) from conflicting records as illustrated 14 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 in Figure 4” and “[tjhere is no discussion in Wolf concerning color coding, greyscale coding or a clock graphic, let alone varying an indicator associated on a display that comprises one of a color coding, a greyscale coding or a clock graphic.” (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 14—16.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, because the dialog box in Figure 4 of Wolf is presented in black, white, and grey (see Fig. 4), incorporating the flag of Brown into Figure 4 of Wolf would result in such flag having a “greyscale coding” in order to be visible against a white or grey background. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown and Wolf would have rendered obvious dependent claim 6, which includes the limitation “wherein said indicator associated on said display with said first subset of data or said second subset of data comprises one of a color coding, a greyscale coding or a clock graphic.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 13 and 20 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to dependent claim 6, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 6. Claims 7, 14 and 21 We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18—19; see also Reply Br. 12—13) that the combination of Brown and Wolf would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 7, which includes the limitation “responsive to a user selection to perform a clear and refresh operation, resetting said metadata corresponding to said data in said data store.” 15 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 The Examiner found that the normalization of time between the client and server of Brown corresponds to the limitation “responsive to a user selection to perform a clear and refresh operation, resetting said metadata corresponding to said data in said data store.” (Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 7.) We do not agree. As discussed previously, Brown explains that one of the sync fields in the server metadata (| 43) includes “[cjlient change time” in which “[t]he client SA passes this value [of client change time] when it pushes the rename change to the server” such that “[t]he server uses this field to arbitrate synchronization conflicts in favor of the most recent change” (| 46). Moreover, such “time value is normalized to server time to account for the difference in time between the client machine and the server.” (Id.) Although the Examiner cited to the time values of Brown that is “normalized to server time” and used to “arbitrate synchronization conflicts,” the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Brown teaches the limitation “responsive to a user selection to perform a clear and refresh operation, resetting said metadata corresponding to said data in said data store.” In particular, Brown is silent with respect to refresh operations and resetting of metadata, as required by claim 7. On this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Brown teaches the limitation “responsive to a user selection to perform a clear and refresh operation, resetting said metadata corresponding to said data in said data store.” Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[t]here is no language in the cited passage that teaches resetting the metadata corresponding to the data in the data store,” but “[ijnstead, Brown simply teaches a field in the server metadata that records the time of the client 16 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 native system event that resulted in the change to the server state identified by the FSI field.” (App. Br. 19 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 13.) Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown and Wolf would have rendered obvious claim 7, which includes the limitation “responsive to a user selection to perform a clear and refresh operation, resetting said metadata corresponding to said data in said data store.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 14 and 21 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to dependent claim 7. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to dependent claim 7. §103 Rejection—Brown, Wolf, and Bauer We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 24—27; see also Reply Br. 17—18) that the combination of Brown, Wolf, and Bauer would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 4, which includes the limitation “wherein said metadata comprises a data display refresh time.” The Examiner found that the client’s last refresh time of Bauer, such that the server can perform synchronization, corresponds to the limitation “wherein said metadata comprises a data display refresh time.” (Non-Final Act. 5—6; see also Ans. 9.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious ... to improve the prior art combination of Brown and Wolf with that of Bauer for the predictable result of a synchronization system wherein metadata may contain a refresh timestamp (i.e. a data display 17 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 refresh time) to indicate when the data item was last refreshed.” (Non-Final Act. 6.) We agree with the Examiner. Bauer relates to “[a] database synchronizer facilitates computing systems which have client-side and server-side applications that share data in similar database structures.” (Abstract.) Bauer explains that “[t]he server uses the update log to create a view of the client’s old values for conflict detection and then a view of the client’s current values for refreshing the client” (col 4,11. 28—31), which is based knowledge of client values at a last refresh time (col. 4,11. 33—34). Thus, Bauer explains, the server can perform synchronization, while “minimizing the amount of information communicated to the server by the client.” (Col. 4,11. 36-41.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the refresh time of Bauer, with the synchronization application of Brown, as modified by Wolf, would improve Brown and Wolf by providing the advantage of minimizing the amount of information communicated during synchronization. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 6) that modifying Brown and Wolf to incorporate the last refresh time of Bauer would have been obvious. Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner has to provide some rational connection between the passage in Bauer that is the source of the Examiner’s reasoning and the missing claim limitation,” however, “[t]he Examiner’s source of reasoning . . . simply discusses that the process is based on knowing what a client’s values are at the last refresh time” and “[s]uch a discussion does not provide reasons as to why one skilled in the art would modify Brown to include the missing claim limitation.” (App. Br. 27 (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously, the combination of 18 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 Bauer with Brown and Wolf is based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in the prior art. In particular, Bauer explains that knowledge of client values at the last refresh minimizes the amount of information communicated to the server by the client. (Col. 4,11. 34-41.) Appellants further argue that “[tjhere is no language in the cited passages that teaches that the metadata comprises a data display refresh time” but “[ijnstead, Bauer only teaches a refresh time, such as the last refresh time.” (Reply Br. 18 (emphasis omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Brown, rather than Bauer, for teaching the limitations “first subset of said metadata” and “second subset of said metadata.” (Non-Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 4—5.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brown, Wolf, and Bauer would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “wherein said metadata comprises a data display refresh time.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 11 and 18 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to dependent claim 4, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 18 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 4. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—20 is affirmed. 19 Appeal 2016-001903 Application 13/233,830 The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7, 14, and 21 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 20 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation