Ex Parte Espino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2009

10114939 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MAYEL ESPINO
__________

Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided1: June 15, 2009
__________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative
Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date.
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-
39. Claims 3, 9, 13, 19, 23, and 29 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to sending a query to a
directory server to update application data on a client (Spec. 4).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for managing a hand-held device executing a
plurality of applications, comprising:

invoking a client installed on the hand-held device for
communicating with a directory server in accordance with a
lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP);

identifying an application from among the applications
executing on the hand-held device, said application having data to be
updated; and

sending a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) query
from the client to the directory server, the query identifying the data.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Havens US 5,881,144 Mar. 09, 1999
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

3
Huang US 6,477,543 B1 Nov. 05, 2002
(filed Oct. 23, 1998)
Shafer US 2002/0191619 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
(filed May 31, 2001)
Chu-Carroll US 2003/0212686 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
(filed Jan. 03, 2001)
Merrells US 7,016,976 B2 Mar. 21, 2006
(filed May 31, 2001)

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24,
26, 28, 30, and 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Huang and Merrells.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 15, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huang, Merrells, and Chu-Carroll.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 17, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huang, Merrells, and Shafer.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Merrells, and Havens.

ISSUE #1
Appellant asserts that while Huang discloses “storing IDs for
applications” and “transformation codes” (App. Br. 10), “it is clearly not the
type of ‘data’ required by the instant claims, i.e., the data claimed is
application data that needs to be ‘updated.’” (id.).
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

4
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Huang and Merrells discloses or suggests “data to be
updated”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Huang discloses “performing update synchronization between
clients” (col. 3, ll. 63-64).
2. Huang discloses “transforming data between the client . . . and a
remote host replica . . . storing a replica of data on the client” (col. 8,
ll. 34-36) and “a transformation code . . . for transforming the data on
the remote host to that of a device type associated with the client”
(col. 8, ll. 38-40).
3. The Specification discloses that an “LDAP directory server . . . may
include an LDAP directory” (Spec. 9).
4. The Specification discloses that an “LDAP directory . . . may be read
from or searched far more often than it may be written to, may
include a flexible mechanism for keeping up with ongoing changes
in the types of information that may be stored therein, may be highly
distributed on a large scale, may be replicated . . . to provide high
availability to the devices 110 accessing them, etc.” (Spec. 9).
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

5
5. Merrells discloses that a directory server “provides a centralized
directory service” (col. 2, ll. 33-34) and the “[t]he term directory
service refers to a collection of software, hardware, and processes
that store information and make the information available to users”
(col. 2, ll. 35-37).
6. Huang discloses “a client to request synchronization services from a
sync proxy” (col. 4, ll. 8-9).
7. Huang discloses “the handheld device sending the information
directly to the sync proxy” along with “a sync identifier which may
only include . . . the application to be synchronized” (col. 4, ll. 26-
30).
8. Huang discloses the “clients can be intermittently connected to
servers (105-107) (also called synchronization proxy, sync proxy,
sync server, or sync proxy server)” (col. 7, ll. 47-50) and that a server
may include “a PC; a workstation . . . or a mainframe computer” (col.
7, ll. 49-52).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

6
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #1)
Since Appellant’s arguments have treated claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-
18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-39 as a single group which stand or fall together
with respect to issue #1, we select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for this group with respect to issue #1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
As above, Huang discloses updating or synchronizing application data
associated with a client (FF 1-2). We find that the application data of Huang
constitutes “data to be updated” because Huang explicitly discloses that such
application data is updated or synchronized.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellant
has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-39 which fall therewith
with respect to issue #1.

Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

7
ISSUE #2
Appellant asserts that while Huang discloses updating data, “this
updating function does not involve the directory server 112” (App. Br.
9).
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Huang and Merrells discloses or suggests sending a LDAP
query from the client to the directory server, the query identifying the data
(to be updated)?

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #2)
Since Appellant’s arguments have treated claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-
18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-39 as a single group which stand or fall together
with respect to issue #2, we select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for this group with respect to issue #2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
While Appellant’s Specification discloses that a directory server “may
include” a directory (FF 3) and that the directory “may be read from or
searched,” “may include a flexible mechanism,” “may be highly
distributed,” and “may be replicated” (FF 4), the Specification does not
provide an explicit definition of the term “directory server.” In the absence
of a definition in the Specification, we adopt a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the term to include any computing device that provides a
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

8
service (i.e., “a server”) and stores information and makes the information
available to users (FF 5, “directory service”).
As indicated above, Huang discloses a user of a handheld device
sending a request for synchronizing (or updating) application data to a server
(FF 6-8), where the server may include a PC, workstation, or mainframe
computer (FF 8). In addition, a PC, workstation, or mainframe computer
may include a memory that stores information that is available to users (i.e.,
information for updating applications). Hence, we agree with the Examiner
that Huang discloses or suggests a client sending a request or query to a
directory server because the sync proxy servers of Huang, like “directory
servers,” are computers that provide a service to users (updating or
synchronizing application data), store information, make the information
available to users, and receive the request or query that identifies data to be
updated (or synchronized).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellant
has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-39 which fall therewith
with respect to issue #1 with respect to issue #2.

ISSUE #3
Appellant asserts that “there would have been insufficient motivation
for making the Examiner’s purported combination” because “the skilled
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

9
artisan would not have sought to glean anything from Merrells et al. that
would provide for identifying application data to be updated by a query from
a client to a directory server in Huang et al.” (App. Br. 11).
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined
the teachings of Huang and Merrells?

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #3)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Huang and Merrells references.
While Appellant argues, as indicated above, that there would have been
insufficient motivation to combine the references because one of ordinary
skill in the art “would not have sought to glean anything from Merrells,”
Appellant has not provided logical reasoning or specific reasons
demonstrating that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Appellant argues that Merrells would not have provided “for
identifying application data to be updated by a query from a client to a
directory server” (App. Br. 11). However, the Examiner relies on Huang for
this feature. Therefore, even assuming Appellant’s contention to be true that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Merrells with
Huang to achieve “identifying application data to be updated by a query
from a client to a directory server,” we do not agree with Appellant’s
argument since it would have been unnecessary for one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

10
the art to combine Merrells with Huang to achieve a feature that Huang
alone discloses or suggests.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellant
has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, and of
claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-39 which fall therewith
with respect to issue #3.

ISSUE #4
Appellant asserts that “nothing in the secondary references to Chu-
Carroll et al. or Shafer cures the deficiencies of the two primary references”
(App. Br. 12).
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Huang and Merrells in combination with Carroll and/or Shafer discloses or
suggests the claimed invention?

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #4)
Appellant’s arguments have treated claims 5, 7, 15, 17, 25, and 27 as a
single group which stand or fall together with respect to issue #4. We
therefore select claim 5 as the representative claim for this group with
respect to issue #4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

11
While Appellant argues that Chu-Carroll or Shafer do not cure “the
deficiencies” of Huang and Merrells, Appellant has not shown any
“deficiencies” in the combination of Huang and Merrells.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellant
has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, or of
claims 7, 15, 17, 25, and 27, which fall therewith with respect to issue #4.

ISSUE #5
Appellant asserts that Havens does not teach or suggest “‘sending a
. . . (LDAP) query from the client to the directory server, the query
identifying the information to be updated.’” (App. Br. 12).
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Huang, Merrells, and Haven discloses or suggests sending a
query identifying data to be updated to a directory server?

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #5)
Appellant’s arguments have treated claims 31-33 as a single group
which stand or fall together. We therefore select claim 31 as the
representative claim for this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant asserts that Havens fails to teach or suggest sending a
LDAP query to the directory server identifying data to be updated.
However, the Examiner relies on Huang and Merrells to provide this feature.
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

12
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellant
has not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31, and
claims 32 and 33, which fall therewith with respect to issue #5.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in:
1. finding that the combination of Huang and Merrells discloses or
suggests “data to be updated” (issue #1),
2. finding that the combination of Huang and Merrells discloses or
suggests sending a LDAP query from the client to the directory server, the
query identifying the data (to be updated) (issue #2),
3. finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have combined the teachings of Huang and Merrells (issue #3),
4. finding that Huang and Merrells in combination with Carroll
and/or Shafer discloses or suggests the claimed invention (issue #4), and
5. finding that the combination of Huang, Merrells, and Havens
discloses or suggests sending a query identifying data to be updated to a
directory server (issue #5).
Appeal 2008-004818
Application 10/114,939

13
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12,
14-18, 20-22, 24-28, and 30-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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

rwk

VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1515 N. COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 500
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909