Ex Parte KernDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201411050272 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT F. KERN ____________ Appeal 2011-009622 Application 11/050,272 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009622 Application 11/050,272 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11 and 16-35, which are the only claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Illustrative Claim 1. A method to selectively provide information to one or more computing devices, comprising the steps of: providing an information storage and retrieval system comprising first information, a first logical partition, and a second logical partition, wherein said first information is disposed in said first logical partition; receiving by said information storage and retrieval system from a first customer a customer business policy specifying a time interval after which data is made available to business partners; receiving by said information storage and retrieval system from said first customer a plurality of customer-defined data extraction algorithms; based upon said customer business policy, forming by said processor second information comprising an instantaneous point-in-time copy of said first information; forming by said processor a plurality of customer-specific datasets from said second information using said plurality of customer-defined data extraction algorithms; migrating by said processor said plurality of customer-specific datasets from said first logical partition to said second logical partition, wherein one or more computing devices have access rights to said second logical partition but not to said first logical partition. Appeal 2011-009622 Application 11/050,272 3 Prior Art Pothapragada US 6,389,432 B1 May 14, 2002 Micka US 2003/0158869 A1 Aug. 21, 2003 Wright US 2003/0172157 A1 Sept. 11, 2003 Markson US 6,714,980 B1 Mar. 30, 2004 Murray US 7,007,048 B1 Feb. 28, 2006 (filed May 29, 2003) Fujibayashi US 7,120,827 B2 Oct. 10, 2006 (filed May 7, 2002) Nakayama US 7,124,258 B2 Oct. 17, 2006 (filed Feb. 3, 2004) Kahn US 7,185,192 B1 Feb. 27, 2007 (filed Jul. 7, 2000) Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 20, 25, 27, 29, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, and Micka. Claims 3, 4, 21, 22, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Nakayama. Claims 5, 6, 11, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Fujibayashi. Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Pothapragada. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Markson. Appeal 2011-009622 Application 11/050,272 4 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “forming by said processor a plurality of customer- specific datasets from said second information using said plurality of customer-defined data extraction algorithms.” The Examiner finds paragraphs 23-25 of Micka teaches this limitation. Ans. 9, 21-22. Appellant contends Micka teaches copying all data from a primary system to a remote system, but does not teach forming customer-specific datasets using a plurality of customer-defined data extraction algorithms. Reply Br. 4-7. We agree with Appellant for the reasons given in the Reply Brief. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent claims 16 and 27 each contain a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11 and 16-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 20, 25, 27, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, and Micka is reversed. The rejection of claims 3, 4, 21, 22, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Nakayama is reversed. The rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Fujibayashi is reversed. Appeal 2011-009622 Application 11/050,272 5 The rejection of claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Pothapragada is reversed. The rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wright, Kahn, Murray, Micka, and Markson is reversed. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation