Ex Parte Zondervan et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 18, 201210989565 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012) 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. 10/989,565 11/16/2004 Quinton Y. Zondervan LOT920040103US1 (072) 2829 46321 7590 06/18/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER SMITH, GARRETT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte QUINTON Y. ZONDERVAN, STEPHEN T. AURIEMMA, SESHA S. BARATHAM, MARIA M. CORBETT, and MICHAEL R. O’BRIEN ____________ Appeal 2009-014996 Application 10/989,565 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, THOMAS S. HAHN, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014996 Application 10/989,565 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 8-12 and 15-19. Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Introduction The invention is a method and device for conflict resolution in a synchronization framework. Appeal Brief 2. “[W]hen a conflict is detected either internally within the framework, or externally in the coupled applications, the conflict resolution logic can apply the resolution rules in determining when and how to perform the synchronization.” Id. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 10 under appeal reads as follows: 10. In a synchronization framework, a conflict detection and resolution method comprising the steps of: receiving an update from a client application for application in a server application; detecting and resolving conflicts for said received update in the synchronization framework; and, selectively applying said update in said server application; and, altering the updates to be sent to the client if necessary, based on the outcome of the conflict resolution, wherein said resolving step comprises the steps of: Appeal 2009-014996 Application 10/989,565 3 determining a conflict type for said update; selecting a conflict resolution based upon said determined conflict type; and, performing said selected conflict resolution; and, applying said update subsequent to performing said selected conflict resolution. Rejection on Appeal Claims 8-12 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terry (U.S. Patent Number 5,581,754; issued December 3, 1996) and Shah (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0125621 A1, published June 9, 2005). Answer 3-9. Issue on Appeal Does the combination of Terry and Shah disclose selecting a conflict resolution based upon a determined conflict type? ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the “Examiner reads into Shah the limitation of ‘selecting a conflict resolution based upon a conflict TYPE’ though Shah only teaches selecting a conflict resolution with the assistance of a log of conflict records that includes a conflict type amongst many things an incoming change that caused the conflict.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellants conclude: The DIFFERENCE between the claimed invention and Shah is that in paragraph [618] of Appeal 2009-014996 Application 10/989,565 4 Shah, the selection of a conflict resolution occurs with the assistance of a log of conflict records while in claims 10 and 17, the selection of a conflict resolution must be based upon a conflict type. Importantly, paragraph [618] provides no affirmative or even implicit suggestion that the conflict resolution is BASED UPON a CONFLICT TYPE in a log of conflict records. Appeal Brief 5. The Examiner agrees that Shah teaches selecting a conflict resolution with the assistance of a log of conflict records, however, the Examiner finds that Shah discloses in paragraph [0604] where the conflict resolution is based the conflict type. Answer 9. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Shah selects the conflict resolution with the assistance of the log of conflict records (see paragraph [0618]) wherein the log include the types of the conflicts (see paragraph [0616]); further, Shah discloses specifying a list of conflict resolvers to be tried until one of them succeeds while associating conflict resolvers with conflict types (see paragraph [0604]). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 10 and 17. For the above reasons, we also affirm the rejection of dependent claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19, whose merits are not separately argued. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987). DECISION The rejection of claims 8-12 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Appeal 2009-014996 Application 10/989,565 5 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation