Ex Parte Nilo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12783423 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121783,423 05/19/2010 BruceNilo
133036 7590 08/25/2016
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University A venue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
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.
337722-315102/P4506USC1 6710
EXAMINER
WU, TSUNG YIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
AppleProsAdmin@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE NILO, GORDIE FREEDMAN,
and TOBY PATERSON
Appeal2015-005713
Application 12/783,423
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 51-54, 57----62, 64----67, 69-72, and 74.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 3
1 Appellants identify Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. (Br. 1.)
2 Claims 1-50, 55, 56, 63, 68, and 73 were canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed May 19, 2010 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Apr. 1, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Nov. 5, 2014 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 25, 2015
("Ans.").
Appeal2015-005713
Application 12/783,423
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to synchronizing data between a plurality of
peer-to-peer devices in a decentralized environment. (Spec. i-f 2.)
Claim 51, reproduced below with disputed language shown in
emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
51. A peer-to-peer synchronization method in a decentralized
environment, the method comprising:
instigating a first synchronization session with the first
peer by sending indications to one or more second peers,
wherein sending the indications comprises leaving at least one
of the indications for at least one of the second peers on a way
station peer and transmitting the at least one indication to the at
least one second peer via the way station peer;
receiving peer change sets for second peers at the first
peer, the peer change sets being generated by first local
synchronizations performed at each of the second peers in
response to the instigation of the first synchronization session
by the first peer, wherein receiving the peer change sets
comprises receiving an indication along with each peer change
set of one or more peers other than the first peer with which the
corresponding second peer has synchronized within a
predetermined time, the indication facilitating avoiding sending
the peer change set to one or more of the peers other than the
first peer;
performing a second local synchronization at the first
peer using the peer change sets received;
producing return change sets respectively for the second
peers based on the second local synchronization; and
transmitting the return change sets to the second peers,
the return change sets being used respectively by each of the
second peers to perform a third local synchronization.
(Br. 14 - Claims App 'x.)
2
Appeal2015-005713
Application 12/783,423
REJECTIONS
Claims 51-54, 59---61, 64---67, 69-71, and 74 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Carmel (WO 2006/018843 A2; Feb. 23, 2006) and
Moromisato et al. (US 2009/0138808 Al; May 28, 2009). (Final Act. 3-37.)
Claim 57 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Carmel,
Moromisato, and Rune (WO 2007/149024 Al; Dec. 27, 2007). (Final Act.
37-38.)
Claim 58 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Carmel,
Moromisato, and IEEE (Logical Link Control, IEEE Standard 802.2 (1998)).
(Final Act. 38-39.)
Claims 62 and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Carmel, Moromisato, Erickson et al. (US 6,892, 210 B 1; May 10, 2005), and
Krzyzanowski (US 2007/0019682 Al; Jan. 25, 2007). (Final Act. 39--43.)
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 51, 64-67, and 74
Appellants contend Carmel does not teach "receiving the peer change
sets comprises receiving an indication along with each peer change set of
one or more peers other than the first peer with which the corresponding
second peer has synchronized within a predetermined time, the indication
facilitating avoiding sending the peer change set to one or more of the peers
other than the first peer," as recited in independent claim 51, with similar
language found in independent claims 64---67 and 74. (Br. 10-13.)
Appellants argue Carmel's synchronization log records are received at a first
device from a second device, and may be forwarded to a third device, but
Carmel's log record forwarding method does not include an indication of
3
Appeal2015-005713
Application 12/783,423
peers, other than the receiving device, with which the forwarding device has
synchronized. (Id.)
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Carmel teaches receiving a peer change
log for a second peer (i.e., device C) at a first peer (i.e., device D), wherein
the change log includes an indication of a peer (i.e., device A), other than the
first peer (device A is a peer other than device D), with which the second
peer has synchronized (device Chas already synchronized with device A)
(Ans. 42 (citing Carmel i-fi-175, 79, and 102)), which is consistent with
Appellants' disclosure of "receiving an indication" with the peer change set
(see Spec. i1 61 ).
Further, Appellants' contention that Carmel does not teach the
disputed limitations of the independent claims is not persuasive of Examiner
error, because Appellants are essentially attacking the Carmel reference
individually where the rejection is based on the combination of Carmel and
Moromisato. (See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ...
the rejections are based on combinations of references.").) The Examiner
relied Moromisato' s suppression timer to teach the peer synchronization is
"within a predetermined time, the indication facilitating avoiding sending
the peer change set to one or more of the peers other than the first peer"
(Ans. 42--43 (citing Moromisato i192)), and properly found that the
combination of Carmel and Moromisato teaches a peer-to-peer
synchronization method having the claimed "indication along with each peer
change set of one or more peers other than the first peer with which the
corresponding second peer has synchronized within a predetermined time,"
4
Appeal2015-005713
Application 12/783,423
in order to avoid unnecessary synchronization steps (see discussion
regarding Carmel supra, and Ans. 42--43).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 51, 64---67, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Carmel and
Moromisato.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 52-54, 57-
62, and 69-72 (see Br. 13), therefore we sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 51, 64---67, and 74.
DECISION4
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 51-54, 57----62, 64---67,
69-72, and 74 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)(l )(iv).
4 We note claims 64 and 7 4 recite a media device readable by a
computing apparatus. However, Appellants' Specification does not define
media device to exclude transitory media. Consequently, the claimed media
device encompasses transitory media, which is not patent eligible. (See Ex
parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).) In the
event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Exarniner to consider whether
at least claims 64 and 74 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although the Board is authorized to
reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn
when the Board elects not to do so. (See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).)
5
Appeal2015-005713
Application 12/783,423
AFFIRMED
6