Ex Parte Howard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13903130 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

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.
13/903,130 05/28/2013 Curtiss J. Howard RSW920130089US1 3335
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
DABIPI, DIXON F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CURTISS J. HOWARD, TODD E. KAPLINGER, and
WILLIAM A. NAGY
Appeal 2017-002998
Application 13/903,130
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—14, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. I.2
1 According to the Appellants the real party in interest is International
Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 28, 2013,
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Apr. 28, 2016, and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed Dec. 19, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Nov. 14, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed Jan. 15, 2016.
Appeal 2017-002998
Application 13/903,130
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention generally concerns methods for maintaining state
synchronization of an application between computing devices. The method
includes receiving a request to access a scope (a partition of data that also
includes a data store storing data) out of a plurality of scopes from a client
device, providing access to state information stored in the scope, updating
the state information stored in the scope, and notifying other client devices
that have access to the scope of the update to the state information. Spec. Tflf
1—5, 15, 35—42; Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
1. A computer program product embodied in a non-
transitory computer readable storage medium for maintaining
state synchronization of an application between computing
devices and maintaining state synchronization of common
information between different applications, the computer
program product comprising the programming instructions for:
receiving a request to access a scope out of a plurality of
scopes from a first client device, wherein each of said plurality
of scopes corresponds to a partition of data, wherein said scope
comprises a data store storing state information;
providing access to said state information stored within
said scope to said first client device;
receiving an update to said state information stored within
said scope from said first client device; and
2
Appeal 2017-002998
Application 13/903,130
notifying one or more other client devices regarding said
update to said state information stored within said scope that
have access to said scope.
RELATED APPEAL
Appellants indicate that an Appeal was filed for a related patent
application, U.S. Patent Application No. 13/904,217. App. Br. 1. The
Notice of Appeal for US 13/904,217 was filed on March 10, 2016 and the
‘217 Application is also the subject of an Appeal to the Board. That appeal
has been assigned Appeal No. 2017-002996. The Board has not issued a
decision on Appeal No. 2017-002996.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clinton et al. (US 8,463,884 B2,
issued June 11, 2013 (filed Apr. 8, 2009)) (“Clinton”) and Novik et al. (US
2012/0109926 Al, published May 3, 2012) (“Novik”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clinton, Novik, and Singhai et al. (US
2014/019979 Al, published July 17, 2014 (filed Jan. 11, 2013)) (“Singhai”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clinton, Novik, and Freedman (US
9,003,299 B2, issued Apr. 7, 2015 (filed Oct. 19, 2012)).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
3
Appeal 2017-002998
Application 13/903,130
Did the Examiner err in finding that Clinton and Novik collectively
would have taught or suggested “notifying one or more other client devices
regarding said update to said state information stored within said scope that
have access to said scope” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Clinton and Novik. See Final Act. 6—13; Ans. 15—35, 40—51. Appellants
contend Clinton and Novik do not teach the disputed features of claim 1.
App. Br. 3—23, 26—34; Reply Br. 2—14. Specifically, Appellants contend,
inter alia, that Clinton and Novik do not teach notifying other client devices
of an update to the state information. See App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 13—14.
In particular, Appellants contend:
There is no language in the cited passages that teaches
notifying one or more other client devices regarding the update
to the state information. Instead, Clinton simply teaches that the
mobile operator management console may allow a mobile
operator to submit new applications for inclusion in the database,
to submit updates and new versions to existing applications, to
submit promotions for applications, to modify pricing, business
rules, and other information related to specific applications, to
revoke applications, and to take any other suitable action related
to programs submitted by a mobile operator and/or configured to
be operated on devices that access the mobile operator’s network.
Reply Br. 14.
The Examiner finds Clinton describes:
tak[ing] any suitable action related to programs submitted by the
mobile operator (one of the one or more client devices) and/or
configured to be operated on devices that access the mobile
operator’s network (thus - notifying one or more other
different client devices regarding said update to said state
4
Appeal 2017-002998
Application 13/903,130
information stored within said scope that have access to said
scope) (Col. 4, lines 17-33).
(Ans. 34 (citing Clinton col. 4,11. 17—33)). The Examiner further finds
Clinton describes synchronizing state information among a mobile device
application server and multiple mobile devices (Ans. 34 (citing Clinton col.
1.11. 34—60)).
We agree with Appellants, and disagree with the Examiner, that
Clinton describes a mobile device updating state information on a server and
then notifying other mobile devices of the update. At best, Clinton describes
“synchronization of a state of the mobile device with a state of the
application server” is known in the art (background) (Clinton col. 1,11. 24—
25), and that multiple mobile devices may interact with a mobile device
application server (see Clinton col. 4,11. 17—24) to take any “suitable action
related to programs submitted by a mobile operator and/or configured to be
operated on devices that access the mobile operator’s network” (Clinton col.
4.11. 30-44). In other words, Clinton generally describes synchronizing a
mobile device with the state of an application server and multiple mobile
devices communicating with a server. Clinton does not explicitly describe
notifying mobile devices of an update to state information stored on a server.
The Examiner’s rejection and subsequent discussion do not sufficiently
explain how these general teachings would suggest a mobile device updating
state information on a server and then notifying other mobile devices of the
update.3
3 We need not and do not address the other issues raised by Appellants and
the Examiner, their extensive discussion of these issues, or the other
limitations of claim 1. We note, however, that Novik describes a scoped
connection request (access request) and accessing partitioned data (a scope
5
Appeal 2017-002998
Application 13/903,130
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that Clinton and Novik teach the disputed
limitations of Appellants’ claim 1. Independent claim 8 includes limitations
of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2—7 and 9-14 depend on claims
1 and 8, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—14.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14.
REVERSED
and/or portion of a database) to update data therein (Novik, Abstract; || 39,
54, 55; Figs. 1 and 2). Clinton {supra) describes synchronizing a mobile
device with state information on a server, a mobile device updating state
information on a server, and multiple mobile devices interacting with the
server.
6