Ex Parte Hom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12893453 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/893,453 09/29/2010
79980 7590 11/02/2016
Keohane & D'Alessandro
1881 Western Avenue Suite 180
Albany, NY 12203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard V. Hom
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
END920100041US1 4151
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
drubbone@kdiplaw.com
Docket@Kdiplaw.com
lcronk@kdiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD V. HOM, ERIC M. NELSON, and JAMES C. NORTH
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MER CADER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-22, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the "invention relates generally to
directory server integration, and more specifically, to just-in-time (JIT)
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
directory integration." Spec. if 1.2 The Specification explains that "just-in-
time (JIT) retrieval of directory information" should "reduce network traffic
and load on directory servers and/or data sources by requesting only the
information that is currently needed from the directory server." Abstract. In
one embodiment, a directory server determines "a location corresponding to
a set of current attribute values for responding to" a data request and then
retrieves "the set of current attribute values from at least one of the
following: the directory server, and an external source." Spec. if 6.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows, with italics identifying the
limitations at issue in claim 1:
1. A method for just-in-time (JIT) retrieval of directory
information, the method comprising:
receiving a request for directory information at a
directory server;
determining, by the directory server, a location
corresponding to a set of current attribute values for responding
to the request, the determining comprising:
retrieving internal attributes and external attributes of
a set of attributes from the directory server, wherein the
directory server continuously maintains the retrieved
external attributes as a duplicate source in the case that
an external source associated with one or more of the
external attributes is no longer capable of being mapped
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed September 29, 2010; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed March 3, 2014; "Adv. Act." for the Advisory Action, mailed
May 20, 2014; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed August 29, 2014;
"Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed October 24, 2014; and "Reply
Br." for the Reply Brief, filed December 24, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
to, and wherein the retrieved external attributes
continuously maintained as the duplicate source include
lightweight directory access protocol information about
an object, each of the external attributes having an
attribute type associated with a syntax that defines the
kind of values that can be stored in the directory server;
determining whether internal data corresponding to
the set of attributes from the directory server is current;
and
determining whether data corresponding to the set of
attributes previously retrieved from an external source
and cached in the directory server is current, wherein the
determining is performed prior to a subsequent retrieval
from the external source for data corresponding to the set
of attributes, and wherein, as a result of the determining,
the subsequent retrieval from the external source is not
performed in the case that data corresponding to the set
of attributes previously retrieved from the external source
and cached in the directory server is current; and
retrieving the set of current attribute values from the
directory server in the case that the data corresponding to the
set of attributes from the directory server is current, and from
the external source in the case that the data corresponding to the
set of attributes from the directory server is not current.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Re} ections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Hassett et al. ("Hassett") US 6, 173,311 B 1
MacLeod et al. ("MacLeod") US 2005/0044103 Al
Bell et al. ("Bell") US 2005/0216485 A 1
Danoyan US 2008/0040395 Al
3
Jan.9,2001
Feb.24,2005
Sept. 29, 2005
Feb. 14,2008
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-22 stand rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over various claims in two U.S. patents and one
copending application. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bell in view of Danoyan, Hassett, and MacLeod. Final Act. 6-31; App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-22 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants' assertions regarding error by the
Examiner.
The Rejection for Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected all pending claims
on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting. Final Act. 2-5. In the
Appeal Brief, Appellants do not present any arguments regarding the
double-patenting rejection. App. Br. 9-18. In the Answer, the Examiner
does not withdraw the double-patenting rejection. Ans. 3-7.
Because Appellants do not contest the double-patenting rejection, we
summarily sustain that rejection. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F .3d 1307, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that"[ w ]hen the appellant fails to contest a
ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with
respect to that ground of rejection as waived"); see also Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 07.2015 Nov. 2015)
("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
4
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
appellant's briet: appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner
subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner's answer.").
The Rejection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINING RETRIEVED
EXTERNAL ATTRIBUTES AS A DUPLICATE SOURCE
Claim 1 requires a "directory server" with "internal attributes and
external attributes of a set of attributes" that "continuously maintains the
retrieved external attributes as a duplicate source in the case that an external
source associated with one or more of the external attributes is no longer
capable of being mapped to." App. Br. 20 (Claims App.). According to the
Specification, mapping an external attribute refers to determining the
attribute' s location. Spec. i-f 30.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Bell and Hassett teaches a
directory server with internal attributes and external attributes that
continuously maintains the external attributes as a duplicate source. Final
Act. 6-7, 9; Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue that the references fail to disclose a directory server
with internal attributes and external attributes that continuously maintains
the external attributes as a duplicate source. App. Br. 14--15, 15-16; Reply
Br. 3--4. Among other things, Appellants point out that the Final Office
Action states that Bell "does not disclose wherein the directory server
continuously maintains the external attributes as [a] duplicate source." App.
Br. 14; see Final Act. 9. Appellants then assert that "Hassett merely stores
previously retrieved data" and, therefore, "fails to specifically teach" a
directory server that continuously maintains external attributes as a duplicate
5
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
source. App. Br. 15. Appellants acknowledge that Hassett teaches
"maintaining a refreshed cache" and relying on the most recently cached
data until a fetch operation successfully obtains updated data. Reply Br. 4.
But Appellants assert that "Bell as modified by Hassett merely teaches
storing previously retrieved data in a cache." Id. at 3.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bell and Hassett
teaches a directory server with internal attributes and external attributes that
continuously maintains the external attributes as a duplicate source. See
Final Act. 6-7, 9; Ans. 3--4. Bell discloses a directory server that stores
values for "relatively static" attributes. Bell i-fi-1 86, 90, Fig. 7 (enhanced
LDAP server 24'). Bell explains that the directory server obtains values for
dynamic or "real time" attributes from external data sources. Id. i-fi-1 64, 86,
91-92, 131 Fig. 7 (real-time data sources 54). Bell's "relatively static"
attributes correspond to the claimed "internal attributes," while Bell's
dynamic or "real time" attributes correspond to the claimed "external
attributes." See Ans. 3--4. As for Hassett's "refreshed cache," it contains
duplicate data with respect to the external source, at least when initially
refreshed. See Hassett 21 : 9-15.
Thus, the Bell-Hassett combination teaches a directory server storing
internal attributes and external attributes that may serve as a duplicate
source. See Ans. 5. That combination also teaches continuously
maintaining the external attributes in storage until a fetch operation
successfully obtains updated data. Hassett 21:9-15; see Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5;
see also Reply Br. 4. Once that occurs, the cache will continuously maintain
the updated data until the next successful fetch operation. Hassett 18:33-34,
21:12-14.
6
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
EXTERNAL ATTRIBUTES CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED THAT INCLUDE
LIGHTWEIGHT DIRECTORY ACCESS PROTOCOL (LDAP) INFORMATION
Claim 1 requires "external attributes continuously maintained" that
include "lightweight directory access protocol [LDAP] information about an
object" and have "an attribute type associated with a syntax that defines" the
storable values. App. Br. 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
MacLeod discloses "external attributes continuously maintained" that
include LDAP information about an object where an LDAP syntax defines
the storable values. Final Act. 1 O; Ans. 5---6.
Appellants argue that the references fail to disclose "external
attributes continuously maintained" that include LDAP information about an
object where an LDAP syntax defines the storable values. App. Br. 14. In
particular, Appellants contend that "all that MacLeod arguably teaches (with
respect to the present claims) is an attribute type associated with a syntax
that defines the kind of values that can be stored in the directory server."
App. Br. 15. Appellants also contend that MacLeod simply discusses
"a name used by LDAP clients to read/write" an attribute and, therefore,
"fails to teach maintaining LDAP information about an object." Reply
Br. 4--5. Appellants further contend that MacLeod "fails to specifically
teach" a directory server that continuously maintains external attributes as a
duplicate source and "does nothing to cure the deficiency of the combined
references." App. Br. 15.
We agree with the Examiner that MacLeod discloses "external
attributes continuously maintained" that include LDAP information about an
object where an LDAP syntax defines the storable values. MacLeod i-fi-136,
45; see id. i-fi-124, 30, 33-34, Fig. 4. Among other things, MacLeod
7
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
describes reading and writing attribute values using the LDAP protocol. Id.
i-f 36. Reading attribute values using the LDAP protocol denotes use of the
LDAP syntax as well as storage of the values at the locations read from.
Similarly, writing attribute values using the LDAP protocol denotes use of
the LDAP syntax as well as storage at the locations written to. Attribute
values stored according to the LDAP syntax correspond to the claimed
"external attributes continuously maintained." In addition, we note that Bell
explains that a directory server preferably "adheres to LDAP standards and
protocols." Bell i-f 64; see Final Act. 6.
As for Appellants' contention that MacLeod "fails to specifically
teach" a directory server that continuously maintains external attributes as a
duplicate source, the Examiner does not rely on MacLeod for that feature.
As explained above, the Bell-Hassett combination teaches that feature. See
Ans. 5.
In essence, Appellants address MacLeod individually. App. Br. 15;
Reply Br. 4--5. Where a rejection rests on a combination of references,
however, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness based on Bell, Danoyan,
Hassett, and MacLeod. Hence, we sustain the obviousness rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 7, 13, and 19 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
When urging patentability, Appellants do not rely on---or even
discuss-any differences between the subject matter of independent
claims 7, 13, and 19 and the subject matter of claim 1. App. Br. 16-18;
8
Appeal2015-002556
Application 12/893,453
Reply Br. 5. Instead, Appellants present the same patentability arguments
for claims 7, 13, and 19 as for claim 1. Compare App. Br. 16-18, with id.
at 14--16. Consequently, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7,
13, and 19 for the reasons applicable to claim 1.
The Rejection of Claims 2-6, 8-12,
14-18, and 20--22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 2---6 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 8-12
depend directly or indirectly from claim 7; claims 14--18 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 13; and claims 20-22 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 19. App. Br. 21-31 (Claims App.). Appellants do not present
any separate patentability arguments for any dependent claims. App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 3-5. Because Appellants do not argue the dependent claims
separately, we sustain the obviousness rejection of the dependent claims for
the reasons applicable to the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-22 on the ground of obviousness-
type double patenting.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9