Ex Parte Segre

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2014

10954832 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARC SEGRE
____________

Appeal 2011-003991
Application 10/954,832
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-34, and 36-40. Claims 9, 35, and 41 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention generally relates to a method and system for
syncing data to a mobile device, and particularly to a method and system for
Appeal 2011-003991
Application 10/954,832

2
prefetching sync data for edge caching on a cellular device. See generally
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitation in italics):
1. A method for prefetching sync data, comprising:
downloading unprocessed sync data from a first location to a
second location over a first network;
processing the unprocessed sync data at the second location to
provide preprocessed sync data;
storing the preprocessed sync data in a cache, wherein the cache
stores preprocessed sync data for a plurality of mobile devices;
receiving a sync request from a mobile device;
providing, in response to the received sync request, at least a
portion of the preprocessed sync data stored in the cache to the mobile
device, wherein only a single sync request and corresponding
response is required to provide the preprocessed sync data stored in
the cache to the mobile device; and
erasing the cache only after all of the plurality of mobile
devices have accessed the cache.

REFERENCES
Chow US 6,029,175 Feb. 22, 2000
Miyazawa US 2002/0078180 A1 June 20, 2002
Mostafa US 2002/0087549 A1 July 4, 2002
Hausman US 2003/0126056 A1 July 3, 2003
Caspi US 2006/0041687 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
(filed Aug. 18, 2004)
Kontio US 7,421,411 B2 Sept. 2, 2008
(filed Mar. 12, 2002)

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 10, 14, 23, 27, 36, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Miyazawa, Hausman, and Mostafa. Ans. 4-16.
Appeal 2011-003991
Application 10/954,832

3
2. Claims 2-7, 15-20, and 28-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Miyazawa, Hausman, Mostafa, and Chow. Ans.
16-32.
3. Claims 8, 21, 22, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Miyazawa, Hausman, Mostafa, Chow, and Kontio. Ans. 32-
34.
4. Claims 11-13, 24-26, and 37-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Miyazawa, Hausman, Mostafa, Chow, and Caspi.
Ans. 34-44.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
MIYAZAWA, HAUSMAN, AND MOSTAFA
The Examiner finds that Miyazawa teaches every recited element of
claim 1 except for (1) “a cache, wherein the cache stores preprocessed sync
data for a plurality of mobile devices”; and (2) “wherein only a single sync
request and corresponding response is required to provide the preprocessed
sync data stored in the cache to the mobile device.” Ans. 4-5. In concluding
that the claim would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Hausman as
teaching the first feature and cites Mostafa as teaching the second feature.
Ans. 5-6.
Appellant argues that (1) Mostafa does not teach “preprocessed sync
data”; and (2) Mostafa does not teach “wherein only a single sync request
and corresponding response is required to provide the preprocessed sync
data stored in the cache to the mobile device.” App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-4.

Appeal 2011-003991
Application 10/954,832

4
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Miyazawa, Hausman, and Mostafa collectively would have taught or
suggested:
(1) “preprocessed sync data”?
(2) “wherein only a single sync request and corresponding response is
required to provide the preprocessed sync data stored in the cache to the
mobile device”?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Appellant’s argument that Mostafa does not teach the recited
“preprocessed sync data” (App. Br. 8-9) is unavailing. The Examiner relies
on Miyazawa, not Mostafa, for teaching the recited “preprocessed sync
data.” Ans. 4 (citing Mostafa ¶ 0099), 45. It is well settled that
nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually
where, as here, the obviousness rejection is based on the combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellant argues
that the Examiner relied on Mostafa for “preprocessed sync data” because
that term is recited in the “wherein” clause quoted by the Examiner (Ans. 6).
Reply Br. 2. However, Appellant ignores the Examiner’s explicit reliance
on Miyazawa for teaching “processing the unprocessed sync data at the
second location to provide preprocessed sync data” (Ans. 4).
Appellant’s argument that Mostafa teaches four steps, not two steps,
(App. Br. 9-10) is also unavailing because it is not commensurate with the
Appeal 2011-003991
Application 10/954,832

5
scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not recite “two steps.” Claim 1 recites
“wherein only a single sync request and corresponding response is required
to provide the preprocessed sync data . . . .” The Examiner finds that
Mostafa’s Content request—shown in Figure 4 being sent from MMS User
Agent B to MMS Relay B—teaches the recited “single sync request,” and
Mostafa’s Content download—shown in Figure 4 being sent from MMS
Relay B to MMS User Agent B—teaches the recited “corresponding
response.” Ans. 6, 46-47. As shown in Figure 4 of Mostafa, the Content
request is the only request sent by MMS User Agent B. Likewise, the
Content download is sent in response to that Content request. Therefore,
content is downloaded in response to a single Content request. As a result,
Mostafa teaches that “only a single sync request and corresponding response
is required to provide the preprocessed sync data,” as recited by claim 1.
To the extent that Appellant is arguing that Mostafa does not teach a
“single . . . corresponding response,” because it teaches two responses—one
from MMS Server B to MMS Relay B and another from MMS Relay B to
MMS User Agent B—we are still not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
findings because it is ambiguous whether “single” modifies “corresponding
response” in addition to “sync request.”
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent
claim 1; (2) independent claims 14, 27, and 40, which recite commensurate
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 10, 23, and 36 not separately argued.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2-8,
11-13, 15-22, 24-26, 28-34, and 37-39. Ans. 16-44, 57-58. In response to
Appeal 2011-003991
Application 10/954,832

6
those rejections, Appellant refers to the arguments made in connection with
claims 1, 14, 27, and 40, and alleges that Chow, Kontio, and Caspi fail to
cure the deficiencies of Miyazawa, Hausman, and Mostafa. App. Br. 18-19.
We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons
previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8, 10-34, and 36-40
under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-34, and 36-40 is
AFFIRMED.
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

bab