Ex Parte Satyavolu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 1, 201410435430 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte RAMAKRISHNA SATYAVOLU, SUBHASH SANKURATRIPATI, SAMPATHKUMAR RANGANATHAN PUDHUKOTTAI, and SIN-MEI TSAI __________ Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method and data management system having components distributed across a first enterprise and a second enterprise separate and remote from the first enterprise. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Yodlee.com, Inc. (see App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 2 Statement of the Case Background A “large company may host a plurality of file servers, including connected data storage systems wherein users may search for and access data stored for the purpose” (Spec. 3, ll. 3-5). The Specification teaches “to automate such an information gathering and presentation service so as to be wholly or largely transparent to individual users” (Spec. 3, ll. 25-27). The Claims Claims 19-30 and 32-34 are on appeal. Claims 20-30 and 32-34 have not been argued separately from claim 19 and, therefore, stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1). Claim 19 reads as follows: 19. A data management system having components distributed across a first enterprise and a second enterprise separate and remote from the first enterprise, comprising: a computerized hardware system server operating at the first enterprise connected by a data link to components at the second enterprise, the system server remotely monitoring the components operating at the second enterprise and harnessing intelligence as a result of the monitoring; a management server operating at the second enterprise connected to the system server and managing overall system activities occurring at the second enterprise; a client interface enabling clients of the second enterprise to access services at the second enterprise and submit specific requests for data; a data gathering engine controlled by the management server for collecting and integrating the data requested by the clients from a plurality of data sources accessible by the data gathering engine; a database operating at the second enterprise storing the collected and integrated data; and comprising that the intelligence is harnessed as a result of the monitoring improving at least the service for the clients requesting data at the second enterprise and enhancing profitability at the second enterprise. Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 3 The issue The Examiner rejected claims 19-30 and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ainsbury2 and Lumsden3 (Ans. 4-12). The Examiner finds that Ainsbury teaches a distributed client server system having a client, an information server, and a catalog server . . . . While Ainsbury does not explicitly teach a second enterprise separate and remote from the first enterprise, Ainsbury teaches a distributed client server system accessed via the internet, which would enable the components to be distributed for a plurality of remote enterprises (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that “Ainsbury does not specifically teach a computerized hardware system server operating at the first enterprise connected by a data link to components at a second enterprise, the system server remotely monitoring the components operating at the second enterprise and harnessing intelligence as a result of the monitoring” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that “Lumsden teaches a server connected by a data link to components [at] a second enterprise, because Lumsden teaches that LANs and servers, may be connected by data link in different geographical locations” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Lumsden “teaches the use of search servers associated with databases at a plurality of enterprises available as internet sites and search products, for providing enhanced documents to the client” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds it obvious to “have combined Ainsbury and Lumsden in order to assist the user of the 2 Ainsbury et al., US 6,078,924, issued Jun. 20, 2000. 3 Lumsden, M., US 6,006,217, issued Dec. 21, 1999. Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 4 system in determining whether an enterprise site was relevant or not” (Ans. 6). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Ainsbury and Lumsden render the claims obvious? Findings of Fact 1. Figure 1 of Ainsbury is reproduced below: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the architecture of an information platform” (Ainsbury, col. 5, ll. 58-59). Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 5 2. Ainsbury teaches that the “information platform is a client/server implementation that is subdivided into four major sections, as illustrated on FIG. 1” (Ainsbury, col. 6, ll. 37-39). 3. Ainsbury teaches that: The control center for the information collection is the catalog 19. The catalog contains details about how to access and retrieve data located throughout e.g. the Internet, as well as knowledge for collecting information from major market research companies, such as Gartner Group, Dun and Bradstreet, and AdScope. A corporation can quickly add all internal data sources to the catalog, providing a user with a one-stop place to pull information from internal and external sources. Similarly, a user can add external information sources, create or modify collection profiles, and customize the catalog. Any catalog can receive updates from the master catalog via the Internet. (Ainsbury, col. 7, ll. 8-19.) 4. Ainsbury teaches: A master catalog is maintained which contains all of the information sources, access scripts, and parsing rules. The catalog references volatile document sources, and must be updated on a frequent basis. It is anticipated that the catalog will be updated with a frequency ranging from daily to monthly. Information platform customers modify their copy of the catalog. The system must synchronize the two sets and produce a new catalog that retains both parties’ modifications. (Ainsbury, col. 46, ll. 16-24.) 5. Ainsbury teaches that a “sophisticated search engine provides a quick way to find individual information nuggets without having to navigate the store” (Ainsbury, col. 9, ll. 4-6). Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 6 6. Ainsbury teaches that the “importance of complex data relationship management is realized when users are able to view multiple types of information in a single visual interface. . . . The information platform provides users with a variety of methods for displaying both structured and unstructured information” (Ainsbury, col. 10, ll. 24-33). 7. Ainsbury teaches a data gathering engine including “collection agents, which retrieve specific information without user intervention” (Ainsbury, col. 6, ll. 45-46). 8. Ainsbury teaches that: The second section of the application platform handles the storage of the information once it has been gathered from a source. As with the data source catalog, the information store 23 uses an object-oriented database and exhibits the same flexible access behaviors, ie. users can navigate the store and find information using a variety of navigation paths. (Ainsbury, col. 7, ll. 50-56.) 9. Ainsbury teaches that: All catalog entries have a flag indicating whether the user edited the item. This allows the synchronization engine to rapidly replace entries where no modifications have been made. All catalog entries have a flag indicating whether the item is deleted, and a date/time field indicating the time of deletion. . . . One way to optimize the synchronization task, is to maintain a list or log of all modifications to the catalog. A transaction list is then distributed to customer sites, rather than the entire catalog. (Ainsbury, col. 47, ll. 38-53.) Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 7 10. Lumsden teaches that [T]he mainframe computer 46 may be located a great geographic distance from the LAN 44, and similarly, the LAN 44 may be located a substantial distance from the LAN 42. For example, the LAN 42 may be located in California, while the LAN 44 may be located in Texas, and the mainframe computer 46 may be located in New York. (Lumsden, col. 5, ll. 23-29.) 11. Lumsden teaches that the “search server 62 can be any of a number of presently available searching products, such as search engines, which are available as sites on the WWW portion of the Internet, such as Altavista, Lycos and Infoseek” (Lumsden, col. 5, ll. 55-58). 12. Lumsden teaches that the “desired documents may be on any of a plurality of databases associated with any of the sites (document servers) linked together by the Internet. The user completes the search form and forwards the completed search form to the search server 62 via the network 64” (Lumsden, col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 3). 13. Lumsden teaches that “a need exists for a technique by which a user of a Web search site or product can quickly and easily ascertain whether a site listed in a search results list merits further investigation” (Lumsden, col. 2, ll. 27-30). Principles of Law “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 8 Analysis We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 4-12; FF 1-12) and agree that the data management system of claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ainsbury and Lumsden. We address Appellants’ arguments below. Appellants contend that “appellant’s claims do not recite ‘a data management system having components distributed across a first enterprise and a second enterprise separate and remote from the first enterprise’” (App. Br. 11). Appellants contend that the “Examiner re-words the claim limitation in order to allow Ainsbury to make the suggestion” (App. Br. 11). We find this argument unpersuasive, since the text of the preamble of claim 19 is identical to the portion quoted by both the Examiner and Appellants. The Examiner’s rejection properly identifies the claim limitations at issue, here the preamble of claim 19, identifies portions of the prior art asserted to suggest the claim limitations, and then, in the most important step, explains how the prior art satisfies the limitation being addressed. In our opinion, this is precisely how an Examiner’s rejection should be written. Appellants contend that the Examiner errs in interpreting Ainsbury as “suggesting” in this regard because the teachings of Ainsbury provide an information platform not unlike the data gathering engine providing services for clients at a second site in appellant’s invention; but Ainsbury is silent regarding a teaching or suggestion of providing the data link between components at a first enterprise and second enterprise, as claimed. (App. Br. 12.) Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 9 We are not persuaded. The Examiner acknowledges that “Ainsbury does not explicitly teach a second enterprise separate and remote from the first enterprise” (Ans. 5). The Examiner correctly points out, however, that “Ainsbury teaches a distributed client server system accessed via the internet, which would enable the components to be distributed for a plurality of remote enterprises” (Ans. 5). Ainsbury clearly suggests data links between two enterprises, teaching that the “catalog contains details about how to access and retrieve data located throughout e.g. the Internet, as well as knowledge for collecting information from major market research companies, such as Gartner Group, Dun and Bradstreet, and AdScope” (Ainsbury, col. 7, ll. 10-13; FF 3). The internet itself involves multiple enterprises, and the citation of multiple companies such as the Gartner Group and Dun and Bradstreet reasonably suggests interaction with second enterprises. Appellants contend that “Ainsbury teaches away from said distribution as understood by Ainsbury’s col. 16 which teaches that the system is implemented as a client/server application wherein Multi-User features such as security, shared configurations and system administration are accommodated and centrally located” (App. Br. 12-13). We are not persuaded. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 10 Appellants do not identify, and we do not find, any teaching in Ainsbury which criticizes or discourages the use of a distributed computer environment. Appellants contend that [T]he combination of Ainsbury and Lumsden is not necessary in order to assist the user of the system in determining whether an enterprise site was relevant or not, as the user/system is conducting searches for data published at enterprises. Therefore, there is no suggested benefit to one with skill in the art to make the combination. If a result is provided as a result of the search, then the site is relevant. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to provide a reasonable explanation or motivation for combining the references, as required. (App. Br. 15.) The Examiner responds that [I]t would have been obvious and desirable to have combined Ainsbury and Lumsden in order to assist the user of the system in determining whether an enterprise site was relevant or not (Lumsden, col. 2, l. 28-30). Further, Ainsbury teaches a distributed client server system accessed via the internet, which would enable the components to be distributed for a plurality of remote enterprises. (Ans. 19.) We find that the Examiner has the better position. Ainsbury suggests that data of interest may be found in remote databases on the internet (FF 3). While Ainsbury is interested in collecting the data into a single database (FF 8), Lumsden teaches the search of multiple databases (FF 10-11) and Lumsden teaches that the “desired documents may be on any of a plurality of databases associated with any of the sites (document servers) linked Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 11 together by the Internet” (Lumsden, col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 1; FF 12). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary artisan would have recognized that search of remote internet databases associated with other enterprises, as taught by Lumsden, would have allowed users to determine whether the data on the remote enterprise site was relevant to the user’s search (FF 13). Appellants contend that “Ainsbury fails to teach or suggest monitoring or harnessing intelligence. This statement by the Examiner is simply unfounded in the art” (App. Br. 16). We are not persuaded. Appellants do not identify any limiting definition in the Specification for “harnessing intelligence.” Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s response that because “Ainsbury teaches a modification flag and transaction log for each catalog entry, i.e., data source, maintained on the catalog server, Ainsbury expressly discloses monitoring and harnessing intelligence” (Ans. 19). That is, Ainsbury clearly teaches monitoring components where “catalog entries have a flag indicating whether the user edited the item. This allows the synchronization engine to rapidly replace entries where no modifications have been made” (Ainsbury, col. 47, ll. 38-41; FF 9). Ainsbury further teaches that one way of harnessing this “intelligence” is “to optimize the synchronization task . . . to maintain a list or log of all modifications to the catalog. A transaction list is then distributed to customer sites, rather than the entire catalog” (Ainsbury, col. 47, ll. 50-53; FF 9). Ainsbury’s optimization of synchronization using the monitored data is reasonably interpreted as “harnessing intelligence” as required by claim 19. Appeal 2011-013213 Application 10/435,430 12 Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Ainsbury and Lumsden render the claims obvious. SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ainsbury and Lumsden. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 20-30 and 32-34, as these claims were not argued separately. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation