Ex Parte Zondervan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

10989565 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

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