Ex Parte Multer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

09753537 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

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.
09/753,537 01/02/2001 David L. Multer FUS1-04105 1714
7590 05/21/2012
Thomas B. Haverstock
162 North Wolfe Road
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
EXAMINER
ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2012 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 DAVID L. MULTER, ROBERT E. GARNER,
LEIGHTON A. RIDGARD,
LIAM J. STANNARD, and DONALD W. CASH
____________

Appeal 2009-010293
Application 09/753,537
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010293
Application 09/753,537

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 80-89 and 109-116. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 1-79 and 90-108 were
canceled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary claim 80 follows:
80. A synchronizer system including a first synchronizer
provided on a network coupled processing device comprising:

computer code, implemented on a processing device, for
comparing at least one file on the device and a record of the file
on the device, and providing binary differencing data between
the file and the record of the file; and

a transaction generator, implemented on a processing
device, providing at least one binary difference transaction
including said binary differencing data and at least one data
field type to an output for forwarding to a network coupled
storage server, the server using the binary differencing data to
synchronize at least one other network coupled processing
device.

The Examiner rejected claims 80-87, 90, and 109-116 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Zollinger (U.S. Patent No.
6,321,236 B1, Nov. 20, 2001, filed Aug. 3, 1999). (Ans. 3-8.)
The Examiner rejected claim 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zollinger in view of Lappington (U.S. Patent No.
5,519,433, May 21, 1996). (Ans. 8-9.)

Appeal 2009-010293
Application 09/753,537

3
The Examiner rejected claim 89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zollinger in view of Morris (U.S. Patent No. 5,574,906,
Nov. 12, 1996). (Ans. 9.)

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Does Zollinger disclose “providing at least one binary difference
transaction including said binary differencing data and at least one data field
type to an output,” as recited in independent claim 80, and as similarly
recited in independent claims 109 and 116?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion regarding the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 3-11) in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments below.
Appellants contend that claims 80, 109, and 116 are not anticipated
because Zollinger does not disclose “providing at least one binary difference
transaction including said binary differencing data and at least one data field
type to an output . . . .” (App. Br. 7.) Zollinger, however, discloses that
“updates isolate only the information that has changed over time so that a
minimum amount of data may be sent to a client.” (Zollinger 3:45-46.) In
other words Zollinger discloses binary differencing data as updates of
Appeal 2009-010293
Application 09/753,537

4
information that has changed. (See Ans. 4 and 10-11.) Zollinger also
discloses data field types such as a change type indicator specifying whether
the updates are modifications to existing data, insertion of new data, or
deletion of data. (Id. at 10:45-65.) Accordingly, Zollinger does disclose the
claim element at issue and therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of independent claims 80, 109, and 116.
Appellants also argue that dependent claim 84 is not anticipated
because it recites a second synchronizer and “[t]here is nothing in the cited
section of Zollinger that teaches a second synchronizer.” (App. Br. 10.) As
explained by the Examiner, there must be synchronizers on both the server
and the clients for the differences detected by the server to be sent to the
clients. (Ans. 5.) Accordingly, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 84.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining claims
on appeal because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability
arguments for any of them. (See App. Br. 6-12.)

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 80-89 and 109-
116.
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
Vsh