Ex Parte LaRue et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 19, 2010

10094110 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 2010)

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.
10/094,110 03/08/2002 Chris LaRue 042933/328898 7152
826 7590 11/22/2010
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
TRUONG, CAM Y T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRIS LARUE and BRYAN DUBE
____________

Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,1101
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed March 8, 2002. The real party in interest is Intellisync
Corporation.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 28-31.3 We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates to synchronizing datasets. (See
Abstract.)
Claim 28 is illustrative:
28. A method for synchronizing datasets in an information
processing system wherein the system consists of a plurality of
synchronizers, each synchronizer including user data and status data,
and a plurality of clients, each client including only user data, the
method comprising the steps of
locally synchronizing, between individual clients and
synchronizers, including updating synchronizer data records in
response to client changes, providing fresh data records from the
synchronizer to the client, and generating status information at the
synchronizer;
system synchronizing between synchronizers, including
exchanging updated user data records and status data between
synchronizers.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bodnar (US

3 The Examiner withdrew the following rejections: (1) §112, second
paragraph rejection of claim 32; (2) §112, first paragraph rejection of claims
28-31; and (3) §101 rejection of claims 32-34. (Ans. 3.)
Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

3
6,295,541 B1, Sep. 25, 2001) and Zondervan (US 6,516,327 B1, Feb. 4,
2003).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. Zondervan discloses that “synchronization modules 86 and 98
cooperate to determine whether synchronization has taken place between the
secondary database 32 and the main database 28 (or any of the related
replica databases 30). (Col. 10, ll. 14-17.)
2. Zondervan discloses that a “[s]ource system 12 may comprise a
. . . a synchronization module 86, . . . secondary system 14 may comprise . .
. a synchronization module 98.” (Col. 9, ll. 26-34.)
3. Zondervan discloses:
Each database in the distributed database system stores an
identification mapping database . . . The system further
comprises a replica identification database associated with the
secondary database that contains an entry for each source
database of the distributed database system, each entry
comprising information regarding the last synchronization
between the secondary database and the source database
including the version of the identification mapping database
associated with the source database when the synchronization
occurred.
(Abstract.)
4. In Zondervan,
identification mapping table 54 may be stored in main database
28. . . . identification mapping table 54 may also be stored in
each replica database 30. Replication of main database 28 with
replica database 30 thereby may also replicate identification
Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

4
mapping table 54 so that each replica database 30 has an up-to-
date copy of the identification mapping table.

(Col. 8, ll. 46-54.)
5. Zondervan discloses that “synchronization modules 86 and 98
directs replica identification table maintenance module 99 to update replica
identification table 58 so that the replica entry corresponding to the source
database with which synchronization is taking place, indicates the time of
the synchronization being performed and the version number of
identification mapping table 54 being used.” (Col. 10, ll. 56-62.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 28-31
Appellants argue claims 28-31 as a group (App. Br. 6-7). For claims
29-31, Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 28. We will,
therefore, treat claims 29-31 as standing or falling with claim 28.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Bodnar and Zondervan, specifically Zondervan, discloses system
synchronizing between synchronizers, including exchanging updated user
data records and status data between synchronizers?
Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

5
Appellants contend that “neither Bodnar nor Zondervan teaches or
suggests a plurality of synchronizers . . . necessarily fail to teach or suggest
‘synchronizing between synchronizers.’” (App. Br. 7: see also Reply Br. 3-
4.) We disagree.
In essence, Appellants contend that because neither Bodnar nor
Zondervan discloses a plurality of synchronizers, they necessarily fail to
disclose synchronizing between synchronizers. However, contrary to
Appellants belief, and as pointed out by the Examiner in the Answer,
Zondervan clearly teaches using multiple synchronizers in its system (FF 1),
e.g., at least one in the source/main system and another synchronizer in the
replica/secondary system (FF 2)(see also Answer 9-11 and Zondervan’s
Figs. 6A and 6B). For example, as shown below, Zondervan discloses
having a synchronization module in both the source system and the
secondary system.

Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

6

Therefore, we find Appellants’ arguments that Zondervan discloses a
single synchronizer architecture (App. Br. 7) unavailing and simply a
mischaracterization of Zondervan. In addition, we find that Zondervan
Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

7
discloses that an identification mapping database and a replica identification
database are used by the synchronizers to exchange updated data records and
status information (FF 3-5). In other words, Zondervan’s synchronization
modules 86 and 98 controls the exchange of information regarding the time
of the synchronization and the version number of the identification mapping
table being used. Thus, we find that the claimed “exchanging updated user
data records and status data between synchronizers” reads on Zondervan’s
synchronizers directing the update of the replica identification table which
contains at least status information.
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 28. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claim 28, as
well as associated dependent claims 29-31.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 28-31.

Appeal 2009-002608
Application 10/094,110

8
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)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

rwk

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000