YIN, Fenglin et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 202013477643 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020) 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. 13/477,643 05/22/2012 Fenglin YIN 20120076 5671 25537 7590 03/31/2020 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1300 I STREET NW SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER TODD, GREGORY G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2020 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): VZPatent25537@verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FENGLIN YIN and JIANXIU HAO1 ___________ Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19–21, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 8. Claims 4, 11, 18 and 22 are cancelled. See Appeal Brief 21–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral argument was held on March 24, 2020. A copy of the transcript will be added to the record in due course.We reverse. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. An oral hearing was held on March 24, 2020. Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 2 Introduction The claimed subject matter according to Appellant: The systems and/or methods may allow a user device to receive the data record (referred to as a “record”) via the orchestration server [local server], in order to streamline the transmission of the records, and/or to reduce network traffic associated with the user device receiving the records from the external server [e.g., owned and/or operated by separate parties, such as separate companies, separate organizations, etc.]. The systems and/or methods may ensure that the cached records [master data records] stored by the orchestration server are up to date with respect to the master records stored by the external server (e.g., by comparing a timestamp, associated with the cached record, with a timestamp, associated with the master record). Specification ¶ 11. Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by an orchestration server, a request, from a user device, for a first record stored by a cache of the orchestration server, the first record including information that indicates whether the user device is permitted to access or receive content from a content provider server; determining, by the orchestration server, an expiry timestamp embedded in a header of the first record, the expiry timestamp being based on a cached record timestamp of the first record and a time to live (TTL) value, Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 3 the cached record timestamp indicating when the first record was created or changed, and the TTL value being set based on optimizing use of a network between the orchestration server and an accounts server; comparing, by the orchestration server, the expiry timestamp of the first record to a timestamp of the request; determining, by the orchestration server, that the first record is invalid based on comparing the expiry timestamp of the first record to the timestamp of the request; determining, by the orchestration server and based on determining that the first record is invalid, whether the first record is out of date with respect to a second record stored by the accounts server by comparing the cached record timestamp of the first record and a timestamp of the second record; updating, by the orchestration server, the first record with information from the second record to form an updated first record when the first record is out of date; and sending the updated first record to the user device associated with the request, the updated first record being used to permit the user device to access or receive the content from the content provider server. References Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 4 Name2 Reference Date Sundarrajan US 2007/0156966 A1 July 5, 2007 Almog US 2008/0209120 A1 August 28, 2008 Olesen US 2010/0325363 A1 December 23, 2010 Sturm US 2012/0174204 A1 July 5, 2012 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–3, 5, 8–10, 12, 15–17, 19 and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Almog, Sturm and Sundarrajan. Final Action 2–8. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Almog, Sturm, Sundarrajan and Olesen. Final Action 8–10. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 29, 2018), the Reply Brief (filed November 7, 2018), the Final Action (mailed January 23, 2018) and the Answer (mailed September 17, 2018), for the respective details. Appellant contends, that: ALMOG et al., STURM et al., and SUNDARRAJAN et al., whether taken separately or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest “determining, by the orchestration server, an expiry timestamp embedded in a header of the first record, the expiry timestamp being based on a cached record timestamp of the first record and a time to live (TTL) value, the cached record timestamp indicating when the first record was 2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 5 created or changed, and the TTL value being set based on optimizing use of a network between the orchestration server and an accounts server,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies [on] paragraphs 2, 12, 13, and 15-19 of ALMOG et al. for allegedly disclosing these features (final Office Action at page 3 and Advisory Action at page 2). ALMOG et al. does not disclose or suggest the above features of claim 1. Appeal Brief 8–9. The Examiner finds: Almog discloses ‘the expiry timestamp being based on a cached record timestamp of the first record and a time to live (TTL) value’ as Almog discloses that a website designer may only allow certain content (each object being unique) to be considered valid in a cache for, as examples, a few minutes, whereas a page that is changed weekly may allow its objects to be cached until the next weekly change (par. 2). Appellant’s specification recites that the TTL comprises time, such as a TTL of 1 hour (par. 44, 53 as filed), the TTL being set of a per-record or type of record basis, and may be set by an administrator of a record. Thus Almog teaches that each object has a timestamp and also a designated time of validity as indicated by each object and the web designer/administrator. Answer 4–5 (emphasis added). Appellant’s Specification discloses: In some implementations, the created timestamp may be based on the timestamp of the record request. Additionally, or alternatively, the expiry timestamp may be based on the timestamp of the record request and/or the TTL. For example, the expiry timestamp may be generated by adding the TTL to the timestamp associated with the record request (e.g., a record request timestamp of 5 PM and a TTL of 1 HR will cause module 450 to generate an expiry timestamp of 6 PM). Specification 44 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 6 TTL field 560 may include a TTL value used to determine a cached record’s expiry timestamp. . . . Additionally, or alternatively, the TTL may be set by an administrator of a record and may be set based on optimizing trade-offs associated with different TTL values. . . . In some implementations, the TTL value may be equal to zero, indicating that orchestration server 220 may communicate with one or more of servers 220-230 each time that a record request is received. Specification 53. Almog’s second paragraph from the BACKGROUND section is reproduced below in its entirety (emphasis added): However, sometimes when a requested object exists in the cache, the object is not valid to be served as a result of it being too old, as indicated by a timestamp. In this manner, users are protected against being served content that is obsolete, as generally determined by the website designer, e.g., a news site may only allow certain content to be considered valid in a cache for a few minutes, whereas a page that is changed weekly may allow its objects to be cached until the next weekly change. Appellant argues: Even assuming that “new timestamp” in ALMOG et al. corresponds to the claimed “expiry timestamp,” which Appellant does not concede, ALMOG et al. only discloses “a new timestamp that verifies the object is still valid” with regards to what “a new timestamp represents.” ALMOG et al. does not disclose anything related to how the “new timestamp” is determined, let alone that it is determined “based on the old timestamp . . . and how soon it will expire,” as alleged by the Examiner. In fact, ALMOG et al. does not even mention “the old timestamp.” Therefore, ALMOG et al. cannot disclose or suggest “determining, by the orchestration server, an expiry timestamp embedded in a header of the first record, the expiry timestamp being based on a cached record timestamp of the first record and a time to live (TTL) value,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 9–10 (Emphasis added). Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 7 Claim 1 recites, “the expiry timestamp being based on a cached record timestamp of the first record and a time to live (TTL) value.” Almog acknowledges that timestamps are employed within a web/network environment. See Almog ¶ 1. However, Almog does not disclose how a timestamp is created. See Almog, ¶¶ 12, 13, 15–19; see also Final Action 3. We further find that neither Sturm nor Sundarrajan addresses Almog’s noted deficiency. See Final Action 5, 6. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error in regard to claim 1, as well as, independent claims 8 and 15, commensurate in scope. We also reverse the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 19–21 and 23–25 for the reasons as stated above in regard to independent claims 1, 8 and 15. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 8– 10, 12, 15– 17, 19, 23– 25 103(a) Almog, Sturm, Sundarrajan 1–3, 5, 8– 10, 12, 15– 17, 19, 23– 25 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 103(a) Almog, Sturm, Sundarrajan, Olesen 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19– 21, 23–25 Appeal 2019-000804 Application 13/477,643 8 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation