YIN, Fenglin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

13477643 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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