Ex Parte Sharp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13233830 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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