Ex Parte Abellan Sevilla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2014

10561012 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JORGE ABELLAN SEVILLA and CHRISTOPHE DUBOIS
___________

Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of
claims 2–4, 6–8, 10, and 11. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12 are cancelled.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed October
20, 2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 11, 2012), and
the originally filed Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 15, 2005).
Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to synchronizing a database of a first device
(e.g., a mobile device) with a database of a second device (e.g., a server).
See Spec. 1:5. More specifically, the invention relates to control of the
synchronization processes of a mobile device using a security token. Spec.
2:23–25.
Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative:
10. A computer-implemented method for synchronizing,
through a network, a first database that is stored in a mobile
first data processing system and a second database stored in a
second data processing system, the method comprising:
loading an application into a security token coupled to
the mobile first data processing system, the application
configured to remotely request that the mobile first data
processing system start a synchronization process of the first
database with the second database according to a
synchronization policy;
executing the loaded application in the security token;
receiving, by the application, messages or events that
occur in the mobile first data processing system or in the
network;
in response to the messages or events received and in
accordance with the synchronization policy, concluding by the
application, whether a synchronization of the first and second
databases is needed, and
if a synchronization is needed, transmitting, by the
application, a remote command to the mobile first data
processing system that informs the mobile first data processing
system that a new synchronization is requested, said remote
command providing the mobile first data processing system
with information about synchronization parameters for use in
synchronizing content of the first and second databases; and
Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

3

initiating, by the mobile first data processing system, the
synchronization process of the first and second databases in
response to receiving the remote command.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 2–4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kruglikov (US 6,505,215 B1; Jan. 7, 2003), Durga (US
6,813,498 B1; Nov. 2, 2004), Guthery (US 6,824,064 B2; Nov. 30, 2004),
and Mwaura (US 6,779,002 B1; Aug. 17, 2004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kruglikov, Durga, Guthery, Mwaura, and Guthery ’022 (US 6,676,022 B1;
Jan. 13, 2004).
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. Br. 4–10. We are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and as
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 10–19). However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.

CLAIMS 2–4, 6, 7, 10, and 11
In rejecting claim 10 (the sole remaining independent claim), the
Examiner relies on Kruglikov for teaching an application in a mobile
Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

4

system, the application configured to request synchronization of a database
with another system. Ans. 5. The Examiner then finds Durga (in
combination with Kruglikov) discloses a mobile unit configured to remotely
request such synchronization. Ans. 5–6. Further, the Examiner finds
Guthery (in combination with Kruglikov and Durga) discloses an application
may be loaded in a security token. Id. at 6. Lastly, the Examiner finds
Mwaura (in combination with Kruglikov, Durga, and Guthery) discloses the
remaining features of claim 10. Ans. 7.
At the outset, we agree with the Examiner, Appellants’ arguments (Br.
4–10) improperly attack each reference of the proposed combination
separately rather than addressing what the combination of references teaches
or suggests to the skilled artisan. Ans. 12 (see In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Regardless, we further highlight specific
issues raised by Appellants’ arguments as follows.

ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present the issue: Has the Examiner erred by
finding the proposed combination teaches or reasonably suggests the
following features of claim 10:
1. “the application configured to remotely request that the mobile
first data processing system start a synchronization process”; and
2. “loading an application into a security token coupled to the mobile
first data processing system.”

Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

5

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Durga (in the proposed combination) fails to
disclose the recited application configured to “remotely request” start of a
synchronization process. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants contend the mobile
switching center (MSC) of Durga sends a recovery page to a mobile unit and
the mobile unit then transmits a recovery signal to start the synchronization
process. Id. Appellants, therefore, contend “the programming in Durga’s
mobile unit is not configured to remotely request that the mobile unit start a
synchronization process of the mobile unit with the mobile switching
center.” Id. Rather, Appellants contend the request comes from an
“application which is stored in the adjunct network entity via the mobile
switching center” (id.), further arguing “it comes from a completely separate
data processing system, one other than the mobile unit, that is not coupled to
the mobile unit” (id. at 7). We disagree.
The Examiner explains the mobile unit of Durga transmits a recovery
signal upon receipt of the recovery page from the MSC. Ans. 13–14. Thus,
we find the recited remote request is taught or reasonably suggested by
Durga’s transmission of the recovery signal to the MSC—transmission of
which precedes commencement of backup of the mobile unit data by the
MSC (i.e., precedes startup of the synchronization process). The Examiner
further explains the recovery processing of Durga may be performed (at least
in part) by programming within the processor and memory of the mobile
unit. Ans. 14. In particular, the mobile unit’s transmission of the recovery
signal may be performed by programmed functions of the mobile unit’s
processor.
Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

6

Appellants also argue Guthery (in the proposed combination) fails to
disclose the recited loading of the application into the security token. Br. 7–
9. Specifically, Appellants contend Guthery does not load an application as
claimed in that the recited application loaded into the security token must be
configured to remotely request start of synchronization and must transmit a
remote command to the mobile device if synchronization is needed. Br. 7–8.
We disagree.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Kruglikov and Durga for
disclosing these features of the application and relies on Guthery merely for
disclosing a security token that may store applications—such as the
applications disclosed by Kruglikov and Durga. Ans. 6, 15. Appellants
further contend, even assuming Kruglikov and Durga disclose such an
application, the further combination with Guthery still fails to disclose the
loading of such an application in a security token because Kruglikov and
Durga “expressly teach that the synchronization program and recovery mode
programming are stored, and Guthery fails to provide any teaching with
respect to such a synchronization program.” Br. 9. We are unpersuaded of
Examiner error.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining
Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

7

the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures.”). Appellants’ argument requires physical combination
of disclosures of the references rather than addressing what is suggested to
the ordinary skilled artisan by the combination of references. We conclude
the combination reasonably suggests to the skilled artisan that an application
as taught by Kruglikov and Durga may be loaded into a security token as
taught by Guthery.
Appellants argue Mwaura fails to remedy any deficiencies of the
combination of Kruglikov, Durga, and Guthery. Br. 9–10. As discussed
supra, we find no such deficiencies.
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred by finding the proposed combination teaches or reasonably suggests
the above-identified, disputed features of claim 10. Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–4, 6, 7, and 11 for essentially the same
reasons as claim 10 (Br. 10) and for essentially the same reasons as claim 10
we are not persuaded of error.

CLAIM 8
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claim 8 (Br. 10)
and thus, for the same reasons as claim 10, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8.

Appeal 2012-007532
Application 10/561,012

8

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2–4,
6–8, 10, and 11 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc