Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2021

2020001559 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2021)

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.
15/362,788 11/28/2016 Kristofer D. Hoffman 400953-US-NP 8938
69316 7590 07/21/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISTOFER D. HOFFMAN and
CHIA-JIUN TAN
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788
Technology Center 2400

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending
claims. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes and purports to claim “techniques
for reducing resource usage for applications that upload content to the
cloud.” Spec. ¶ 4. By way of Background, Appellant’s Specification
describes applications that allow users to “upload and sync their files to a
cloud storage and access those files from any device, such as a mobile
phone, tablet, or computer, that is connected to the Internet.” Id. ¶ 1.
Appellant’s Specification further notes, however, that such applications may
“waste resources by continuing to attempt to upload a file, as well as trying
to upload different files multiple times, even when there is no network
connection.” Id. ¶ 3. As a solution, Appellant’s Specification describes
managing an upload queue, including pausing and un-pausing the queue
based on a detected change in network connectivity. Id. ¶ 16. The detection
of network availability is “performed outside of the upload process so that
the upload process does not require checking for network connectivity
before uploading each time new content is detected.” Id. ¶ 18. If a loss of
connection is determined, “the app can set the upload queue to a paused state
where no upload attempt would be performed, even if a new content is
indicated.” Id. ¶ 17.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations italicized, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of reducing resource usage by an
application running on a computing device, the method
comprising:
managing, at the computing device, an upload queue for
transmitting content received at the computing device to a cloud
service;
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

3
determining whether to perform an automatic upload
process by checking a state of the upload queue, including
whether the upload queue is indicated to be in an un-paused
state or a paused state, wherein the state of the upload queue
comprises the un-paused state and the paused state;
after checking the state of the upload queue and while the
upload queue is indicated to be in the un-paused state,
performing, at the computing device, the automatic upload
process by transmitting content indicated as new in the upload
queue to the cloud service using a network resource of the
computing device; and
separately from checking the state of the upload queue
and performing the automatic upload process, detecting
network connection changes of a loss of network connection
and an availability of the network connection, wherein in
response to detecting the loss of the network connection, the
upload queue is set to the paused state.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0244794 A1 to Poletto et al.,
published Aug. 27, 2015 (“Poletto”).
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

4
REJECTION2
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 as obvious over
Poletto. Final Act. 4–19.

OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and contentions (Appeal
Br. 11–22; Reply Br. 2–9) in light of the Examiner’s findings and
explanations (Final Act. 4–18; Ans. 3–17). For the reasons set forth below,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of the pending
claims, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant collectively argues the rejection of claims 1–20 with regard
to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal Br. 21–22 (grouping claims 1–7, 8–14, and 15–20, but arguing only
claim 1 with particularity, and incorporating those arguments by reference
with regard to independent claims 8 and 15 and the respective dependent
claims). Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal
of claims 1–20 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2018).

2 The Examiner also rejected claims 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
drawn to non-statutory subject matter (Final Act. 2–3), and rejected claims
1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the
written description requirement (id. at 3). The Examiner withdrew the
written description rejection in the Advisory Action mailed May 16, 2019,
and withdrew the section 101 rejection in the Answer (Ans. 3). Only the
rejection under section 103 remains before us on appeal.
3 The Examiner’s rejection is under the provisions of Title 35 of the United
States Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act of 2011.
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

5
The Examiner finds that Poletto teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–8; Ans. 4–15.
Appellant argues that Poletto, at a minimum, fails to teach or suggest
determining whether to perform an automatic upload
process by checking a state of the upload queue, including
whether the upload queue is indicated to be in an un-paused
state or a paused state, . . . and
separately from checking the state of the upload queue
and performing the automatic upload process, detecting
network connection changes of a loss of network connection
and an availability of the network connection,
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant contends that
Poletto describes checking network connectivity, instead of the state of the
queue, before uploading an image. Id. at 13–14. Appellant acknowledges
that Poletto “mentions that uploading can be paused,” but contends that, in
Poletto, “there is no checking of the pause state of the queue as the
determination of whether to attempt to upload.” Id. at 14. Appellant also
acknowledges that Poletto describes that “the upload process can be paused
and the progress can be saved when connectivity is lost,” but asserts that
“this is not performed separately from checking the state of the upload queue
and performing the automatic upload process.” Id. at 18. In short, Appellant
argues error in the Examiner’s rejection because “[t]here is also no
description in Poletto of determining whether to upload content based on
the state of the upload queue itself (as opposed to the loss of a network
connection).” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Poletto teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations by disclosing: (1) queuing an image to be uploaded (Ans. 5
(citing Poletto ¶¶ 7, 10)); (2) pausing uploading an image when connectivity
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

6
is determined to be below a threshold, and saving progress in cache memory
(id. at 6 (citing Poletto ¶¶ 7, 10, 48, 61, 77–79)); and (3) once network
connectivity is determined to be restored, resuming upload of the content
that is determined to be new (that is, not already uploaded) (id. at 7–9 (citing
Poletto ¶¶ 7, 10, 48, 61, 77–80)). Poletto also teaches or suggests checking
network connectivity separately from the upload process, as Poletto
discloses, for example, that the level of connectivity may be determined at
periodic time intervals to determine a current status of connectivity. Poletto
¶ 78; see also Ans. 8–9.
Appellant’s arguments on appeal center on whether Poletto discloses
checking a state of the upload queue to determine whether to perform an
automatic upload progress. Appeal Br. 14–18; Reply Br. 3–4. On
Appellant’s reading, Poletto discloses only checking network connectivity
directly without checking a state of the upload queue to determine whether
the queue is in an un-paused or paused state and basing an upload
determination on the state of the queue. See id. We disagree. As noted
above, Poletto discloses an embodiment in which the system will pause an
upload if connectivity falls below a defined threshold, and will save progress
in cache memory. Poletto ¶¶ 61, 67; see also ¶ 65 (describing a user
interface that indicates to the user that uploading has been paused).
Meanwhile, while uploading is paused, Poletto’s system will periodically
check connectivity status, which is done separately from an upload process
(because uploading has been paused). See id. ¶ 78. Once Poletto’s system
determines that connectivity exceeds the defined threshold, the system will
attempt to restart or continue any upload that was paused. Id. ¶ 79. This
necessarily involves checking the queue to determine whether it was paused
Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

7
in the midst of an upload, such that contents remain to be uploaded, as well
as unpausing the queue so as to commence the automatic download.
See Ans. 8–9. Thus, Poletto teaches or suggests “determining whether to
perform an automatic upload process by checking a state of the upload
queue, including whether the upload queue is indicated to be in an un-paused
state or a paused state,” and also “after checking the state of the upload
queue and while the upload queue is indicated to be in the un-paused state,
performing, at the computing device, the automatic upload process by
transmitting content indicated as new in the upload queue,” as recited in
claim 1. See, e.g., Ans. 5–9.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection, along with
the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, and all of the dependent
claims, which are all argued collectively with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11–
22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–20 is sustained.

Appeal 2020-001559
Application 15/362,788

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Poletto 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED