DROPBOX EX. 1008
`
`DROPB OX EX. 1008
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—04l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re I:-Her Pcmes Reexamination of:
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`Multer, et al.
`
`Control No.: 95/002,339
`
`Patent No.: 6,671,757
`
`Reexamination Filed: September 14, 2012
`
`For:
`
`DATA TRANSFER AND
`SYNCHRONIZATION
`
`Examiner: Steelman, Mary J
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`162 North Wolfe Road
`Sunnyvale, California 94036
`(408)530-9700
`
`Customer No. 28960
`
`‘n_/‘n_/‘n_/‘n_/‘n_/‘n_/‘n_/‘n_/\n_/\n_/‘n_/\n_/‘n_/\n_/\n_/\n_/
`
`Mail Stop Inter Panes Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Madam:
`
`In response to the pending Office Action mailed December 10, 2012, please conside1' the
`
`following remarks:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Claims I, 3, I l, 24, 25 and 27 are subject to reexamination in this proceeding. The
`
`Office Action adopts the Requester’s Issues 1-6 (and corresponding sub-issues), although Issues
`
`1-7 are presented for a response by the Patent Owner. The Office Action does not adopt the
`
`Requester’s Issue 7. In the Office Action, claims 1, 3, l 1, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under the
`
`following Issues:
`
`Issue #1 — Claims 1, 3, ll, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l02(e) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,708,221 to Mendez et al. (hereafter “Mendez ‘22]”).
`
`Issue #2(l) — Claims 1 and 11 are rejected unde1' 35 U.S.C. § l02(e) as anticipated by
`
`US. Patent No. 6,574,657 to Dickinson (hereafter “Dickinson”).
`
`-1-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`Issue #2(2) — Claims 3, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as obvious
`
`over Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘221.
`
`Issue #3 — Claims I, 3,
`
`l 1, 24, 25 and 2? ate rejected unde1' 35 U.S.C. § l02(a) and 35
`
`U.S.C. § l02(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,961,590 to Mendez et al. (hereafter “Mendez
`
`‘590”).
`
`Issue #4(l) — Claims 1 and 11 are rejected unde1' 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. §
`
`l02(e) as anticipated by US. Patent No. 5,870,759 to Bauer et al. (hereafter “Bauer”).
`
`Issue #4(2) — Claims 3, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected unde1' 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as obvious
`
`over Bauer in View of Mendez ‘22l.
`
`Issue #5(1) — Claims 1, 3, 11, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l02(e) as
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,389,423 to Sakakura (hereafter “Sakakura”).
`
`Issue #5(2) — Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as obvious over Sakakura in
`
`view of Mendez ‘22l.
`
`Issue #6(l) — Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l02(a) and 35 U.S.C. §
`
`l02(b) as anticipated by “SmartSync User’s Guide” (hereafter “SmartSync”).
`
`Issue #6(2) — Claim 3, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Sma1’tSync in view of Mendez 221.
`
`II.
`
`PATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS OVER CITED ART
`
`A.
`
`Mendez ‘221 fails to anticipate claims 1, 3, ll, 24, 25 and 27 of the ‘757
`
`patent
`
`The pending Office Action rejects claims 1, 3, 11, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
`
`as allegedly being anticipated by Mendez ‘221. See, Office Action at 8. This reference,
`
`however, fails to anticipate “a data store coupled to the network and in communication with the
`
`first and second systems; and a second sync engine on the second system coupled to receive the
`
`difference information in the difference transaction from the data store via the network, and
`
`interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the second system with said
`
`difference information.” See, claim 1 of the ‘757 patent. This reference also fails to anticipate
`
`“a storage server having an Internet connection.” See, claim 24 of ‘757 patent. This reference
`
`furthe1' fails to anticipate “wherein each said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy of a
`
`-2-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator.” See, claims 1 and 24 of ‘757
`
`patent.
`
`Claims 1 and 24 are independent. Claims 3, l l, 25 and 27 depend from claims 1 and 24,
`
`respectively.
`
`1.
`
`Mendez ‘22l does not teach “a data store coupled to the network and
`
`in communication with the first and second systems” of claim 1
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Mendez ‘221 discloses “a data store coupled to the network and in
`
`communication with the first and second systems,” as claimed.
`
`The Requester characterizes a client’s workspace data 180 as a data store and the server’s
`
`workspace data 163 also as a data store. See, Request at 33. However, workspace data is not the
`
`same as a data store. One skilled in the art understands that data is a body of information,
`
`whereas a data store is a repository for storing data and is not the data itself.
`
`Accordingly, Mendez ‘22l fails to teach “a data store coupled to the network and in
`
`communication with the first and second systems” of claim 1.
`
`2.
`
`Mendez ‘221 does not teach “a second sync engine on the second
`
`system coupled to receive the difference information in the difference
`
`transaction from the data store via the network, and interfacing with
`
`data on the second system to update said data on the second system
`
`with said difference information” of claim 1
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Mendez ‘221 discloses “a second sync engine on the second system
`
`coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from the data store Via
`
`the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the second
`
`system with said difference information,” as claimed.
`
`The Requester states that Mendez ‘221 teaches a system for synchronizing data between a
`
`first system and a second system, and provides three scenarios: client (acting as a first system) to
`
`client (acting as a second system), client (acting as a first system) to server (acting as a second
`
`system), and sewer (acting as a first system) to client (acting as a second system). See, Request
`
`-3-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSl—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`at 29-30. The Requester characterizes a Client’s base system 170 as a sync engine and the
`
`server’s synchronization agent 145 also as a sync engine. See, Request at 31 and 35. Also, the
`
`Requester characterizes a client’s workspace data 180 as a data store and the serVer’s workspace
`
`data 163 also as a data store. See, Request at 33. Based on such characterizations, neither of the
`
`asserted sync engines receives any data from an asserted data store.
`
`As discussed above, workspace data is not the same as a data store. One skilled in the art
`
`understands that data is a body of information, whereas a data store is a repository for storing
`
`data and is not the data itself. Even if somehow workspace data can be considered the same as a
`
`data sto1‘e (which we do not admit), Mendez ‘221 does not that difference information in a
`
`difference transaction is retrieved from its workspace data. Again, data is simply a body of
`
`information. Instead, Mendez ‘22l teaches that the general synchronization module 410 in the
`
`server forwards translated changes to the general synchronization module 825 in the client for
`
`updating outdated workspace element in the workspace data 130. Mendez ‘Z21 also teaches that
`
`the general synchronization module 825 sends changes in the workspace data 180 to global
`
`translator 150 in the server for translation and then to the general synchronization module 4l0 for
`
`updating the outdated workspace element in the workspace data 163. The general
`
`synchronization module 410 in the server is separate and dflferenf from the workspace data 163
`
`in the server. See, Figures 3-4 of Mendez ‘22l. Similarly, the general synchronization module
`
`325 in the client is separate and different from the workspace data 180 in the client. See, Figures
`
`7-8 of Mendez ‘22l.
`
`Accordingly, Mendez ‘Z21 fails to teach “a second sync engine on the second system
`
`coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from the data store via
`
`the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the second
`
`system with said difference information” of claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`Mendez ‘221 does not teach “a storage server having an Internet
`
`connection” of claim 24
`
`Regarding claim 24, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Mendez ‘22l discloses “a storage server having an Internet
`
`connection,” as claimed.
`
`The Requester characte1'izes the server’s workspace data 163 as a storage server and the
`
`client’s workspace data 180 also as a storage sewer. See, Request at 44-45. As discussed above,
`
`-4-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSl—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`data is a body of information. Data is not the same as a storage sewer. Further, based on the
`
`Requester’s characterizations, Mendez ‘221 does not teach that its workspace data (i.e., storage
`
`server) has an Internet connection.
`
`Accordingly, Mendez ‘221 fails to teach “a storage server having an Internet connection”
`
`of claim 24.
`
`4.
`
`Mendez ‘Z21 does not teach “wherein each said sync engine comprises
`
`a data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a
`
`difference transaction generator” of claims 1 and 24
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 24, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Mendez ‘221 discloses “wherein each said sync engine comprises a
`
`data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator,” as
`
`claimed.
`
`As mentioned above, the Requester characterizes a client’s base system 170 as a sync
`
`engine and the server’s synchronization agent 145 also as a sync engine. Based on these
`
`characterizations, each of asserted sync engines does not include all of the following: a data
`
`interface, a copy of a previous state of said data and a difference transaction generator.
`
`In regards to the synchronization agent 145 in the sewer, which is shown in Figure 4,
`
`Mendez ‘22l teaches that the synchronization agent 145 merely includes a communications
`
`module 405 and a general synchronization module 410. The synchronization agent 145 in the
`
`server does not include a copy of a previous state of said data. Mendez ‘221 teaches that data is
`
`stored .s'ep(£r(Jfet'y from the synchronization agent 145. Figure 3 explicitly shows the
`
`synchronisation agent 145 being separate from the workspace data 163.
`
`In regards to the base system 170 in the client, which is shown in Figure 8, Mendez ‘22l
`
`teaches that the base system 170 merely includes a communications module 805, a user interface
`
`module 810, locator modules 815, a synch—start module 820, a general synchronization module
`
`825 and a content-based synchronization module 830. The base system 170 in the client does not
`
`include a copy of a previous state of said data. Mendez ‘22l teaches that data is stored
`
`separately f1'om the base system 170. Figure 7 explicitly shows the base system 170 being
`
`separate from the workspace data 180.
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Accordingly, Mendez ‘22l fails to teach “wherein each said sync engine comprises a data
`
`interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator” of claims
`
`1 and 24.
`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`5.
`
`The rejections of claims 1, 3, ll, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
`
`as allegedly being anticipated by Mendez ‘221 are overcome
`
`Thus, Mendez ‘22l does not disclose “a data store coupled to the network and in
`
`communication with the first and second systems; and a second sync engine on the second
`
`system coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from the data
`
`store via the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the
`
`second system with said difference information,” as recited in claim 1. Mendez ‘22l also does
`
`not disclose “a storage server having an Internet connection,” as recited in claim 24. Mendez
`
`‘22l furthe1' does not disclose “wherein each said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy
`
`of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator,” as recited in claims 1 and
`
`24. For at least the reasons discussed, Mendez ‘22l does not anticipate claims 1, 3, ll, 24, 25
`
`and 27, because Mendez ‘22l does not disclose each and every element of those claims.
`
`Patent Owner therefore submits that the rejections of claims 1, 3, ll, 24, 25 and 27 are
`
`overcome and respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 3,
`
`l l, 24, 25 and 27 unde1' 35
`
`U.S.C. §l02(e) as allegedly being anticipated by Mendez ‘22l be withdrawn.
`
`B.
`
`Dickinson fails to anticipate claims 1 and 11 of the ‘757 patent
`
`The pending Office Action rejects claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §l02(e) as allegedly
`
`being anticipated by Dickinson. See, Office Action at 9. This reference, however, fails to
`
`anticipate “a first sync engine on the first system interfacing with data on the first system to
`
`provide difference information in a difference transaction;
`
`and a second sync engine on the
`
`second system coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from
`
`the data store Via the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data
`
`on the second system with said difference information; wherein each said sync engine comprises
`
`a data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator.”
`
`See, claim 1 of the ‘757 patent.
`
`Claim 1 is independent. Claim ll depends from claim 1.
`
`-5-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`1.
`
`Dickinson does not teach “a first sync engine on the first system
`
`interfacing with data on the first system to provide difference
`
`information in a difference transaction” of claim 1
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Dickinson discloses “a first sync engine on the first system interfacing
`
`with data on the first system to provide difference information in a difference transaction,” as
`
`claimed.
`
`Dickinson teaches synchronization and updating from a server computer to a client
`
`computer. See, Abstract of Dickinson. The Requester characterizes Dickinson’s server
`
`computer as the first system and Dickinson’s delta engine in the server computer as a first sync
`
`engine. See, Request at 56. Dickinson’s delta engine compares two sets of segments to
`
`determine which segments have been altered, and extracts new or changed segments and bundles
`
`these into a file, called an update file. See, Dickinson at col. 9, lines 27-31 and 51-56. The
`
`update file is illustrated in Figure I 1. Dickinson teaches that:
`
`Because the client computer does not store the signature lists or have any
`
`knowledge of the fact that the subscription files are broken into segments by the
`
`server computer, the update file must include address information necessary to
`
`e_fl°ectaate the cop_ving of the correct bytes into the cop}-' of the current ver.s'1'aa of
`
`the subscription fife. Thus, the tocation and size of each segment are ihcfuded as
`
`arguments to each of the cop)‘ r'0mmattd.s' so that the client computer can compute
`
`the address of the correct bj-'tes. The client computer stores the copies of the
`
`subscription files as standard files within its operating system and only knows the
`
`beginning location and size of the entire file. The location and size infolmation
`
`included in each copy command by the server computer 203 is combined with the
`
`file offset value at the client computer in order for the client computer to calculate
`
`the range of addresses to be copied. In addition, the server computer 203 has no
`
`way of knowing where exactly on the client computer's hard disk that the client
`
`computer stored the earlier version of the subscription file. The htsert commands
`
`1 I02, H04, and I I05 include the actual contents of the segments 82, B4, and 85,
`
`respectively. Although the segment size is variable, the inclusion of the actual
`
`contents of the new or changed segments B2, B4, and B5 represent the vast bulk
`
`-7-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`of the update file 1 100. In othe1' words, the copy commands l 101, 1 103, l 106, and
`
`1107 are negligible in size in comparison to the contents of the actual new or
`
`changed segments which must be transmitted. Infact, in FIG. 9, the updafefife
`
`902 and in FIG. 8, the updrttefife 80}, are iHu.s't‘rared sr)IeIy by the r.’()rItents' ofrhe
`
`segments B2, B4, and B5 and omit iifustrrttirzg the acme! copy and insert
`
`(.‘ommtmds bemu.s'e they are Hegh'gibte in size to the rmrual mnrem ofthe
`
`transmitted segments. Because the segments are transmitted via electronic mail,
`
`they may be further compressed to reduce their size and thereby minimize
`
`connection time in receiving the electronic mail. Because the update file is often
`
`transmitted over an insecure communication medium, such as the internet, the
`
`update file 902 is optionally encrypted for security purposes according to the
`
`present invention. [emphasis added]
`
`See, Dickinson at col. 12, lines 8-46. Dickinson teaches that the actual contents of new and
`
`modified segments, among other things, are transmitted. Dickinson fails to teach difference
`
`information.
`
`It therefore follows that Dickinson fails to teach providing difference information
`
`in a difference transaction.
`
`Accordingly, Dickinson fails to teach “a first sync engine on the first system interfacing
`
`with data on the first system to provide difference information in a difference transaction” of
`
`claim 1.
`
`2.
`
`Dickinson does not teach “a second sync engine on the second system
`
`coupled to receive the difference information in the difference
`
`transaction from the data store via the network, and interfacing with
`
`data on the second system to update said data on the second system
`
`with said difference information” of claim 1
`
`Also regarding claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Dickinson discloses “a second sync engine on the second system
`
`coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from the data store via
`
`the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the second
`
`system with said difference information,” as claimed.
`
`-3-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`First, as discussed above, Dickinson fails to teach difference information in a difference
`
`transaction. Second, Dickinson fails to teach that a second sync engine on the second system
`
`receives the difference information from the data store. The Requester characterizes Dickinson’s
`
`network drive 202 as the data store and Dickinson’s client computer as the second system.
`
`Dickinson teaches and the Requester even acknowledges that the “[c]lient computer 210 (the
`
`second system) receives information related to any changes in network drive 202’s (the data
`
`store) files via an update file 801 from server computer 203 (thefirst s_vs:em).” See, Request at
`
`56 and 57, emphasis included. However, claim 1 recites that difference information in the
`
`difference transaction is received from the data store.
`
`In addition, Dickinson fails to teach interfacing with data on the second system to update
`
`Said data on the second system with said difference information. Instead, Dickinson teaches that
`
`its update file is used to create a current copy on the client computerfi-om. a copy of the earlier
`
`version on the client computer. Dickinson’s client computer does not update the earlier file but
`
`instead builds another file to be the current version. Figure 9 of Dickinson illustrates the
`
`creation ofa carrrent Copy on the client computer. Further, the Requester even acknowledges
`
`that, in Dickinson, “a server computer generates an update file for transmission to a client
`
`computer that permits the client computer to genemfe a Copy ofa Cunrem version of a
`
`.ruI;.s'c.-riprirm file from a copy of an earlier version of the subscription file” and “the new or
`
`changed segments B2, B4 and B5 are extracted from the current version of the subscription file
`
`stored on the network drive 202 by the server computer 203, and are packaged in an update file
`
`801 for transmission to the client computer 201 shown in FIG. 2 so that the client computer 201
`
`can build a c'0p_\-' ofthe eurremf venrirm ofthe su!).s'r'ripr1'0n file f1‘om its Copy of the earlier version
`
`of the subscription file.” See, Request at 53, emphasis included.
`
`Accordingly, Dickinson fails to teach “a second sync engine on the second system
`
`coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from the data store via
`
`the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the second
`
`system with said difference information” of claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`Dickinson does not teach “wherein each said sync engine comprises a
`
`data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference
`
`transaction generator” of claim 1
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`Also regarding Claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Dickinson discloses “wherein each said sync engine comprises a data
`
`interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator,” as
`
`claimed.
`
`The Requester characterizes Dickinson’s sewer computer as the first system and
`
`Dickinson’s delta engine in the sewer computer as a first sync engine, and characterizes
`
`Dickinson’s client computer as the second system, stating that the client computer “necessarily
`
`contains circuitry andfor software to act as a second sync engine on client computer.” See,
`
`Request at 56 and 57. Based on these characterizations, each of the asserted sync engines does
`
`not include all of the following: a data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data and a
`
`difference transaction generator.
`
`First, as discussed above, Dickinson fails to teach difference information. It therefore
`
`follows that Dickinson fails to teach a difference transaction generator.
`
`Further, in regards to the delta engine in the server, Dickinson does not teach that the
`
`delta engine includes a copy of a previous state of data. Dickinson’s delta engine compares two
`
`sets of segments of a subscription file to determine which segments have been altered, and
`
`extracts new or changed segments and bundles these into a file, called an update file. See,
`
`Dickinson at col. 9, lines 27-31 and 51-56. Dickinson does not teach that the delta engine
`
`includes a copy of one or both sets of segments.
`
`Accordingly, Dickinson fails to teach “wherein each said sync engine comprises a data
`
`interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator” of claim
`
`1.
`
`4.
`
`The rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §l02(e) as allegedly
`
`being anticipated by Dickinson are overcome
`
`Thus, Dickinson does not disclose “a first sync engine on the first system interfacing with
`
`data on the first system to provide difference information in a difference transaction;
`
`and a
`
`second sync engine on the second system coupled to receive the difference information in the
`
`difference transaction from the data store via the network, and interfacing with data on the
`
`second system to update said data on the second system with said difference information;
`
`wherein each said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data,
`
`and a difference transaction generator,” as recited in claim 1. For at least the reasons discussed,
`
`-10-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`Dickinson does not anticipate claims I and l 1, because Dickinson does not disclose each and
`
`every element of those claims.
`
`Patent Owner therefore submits that the rejections of claims 1 and l 1 are overcome and
`
`respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §l02(e) as allegedly
`
`being anticipated by Dickinson be withdrawn.
`
`C.
`
`The combination of Dickinson and Mendez ‘221 fails to render claims 3, 24,
`
`25 and 27 of the ‘757 patent obvious
`
`The pending Office Action rejects claims 3, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §l03(a) as
`
`allegedly being obvious the combination of Dickinson and Mendez ‘22l. See, Office Action at
`
`9. These references, taken alone or in combination, fail to make obvious “wherein each said sync
`
`engine comprises a data interface, a copy ofa previous state of said data, and a difference
`
`transaction generator.” See, claim 24 of ‘757 patent. These references, taken alone or in
`
`combination, fail to make obvious “wherein data transfer between the first device, the second
`
`device and the storage server comprises difference transactions.” See, claim 2'? of ‘757 patent.
`
`Claim 24 is independent. Claims 3, 25 and 27 depend from Claims I and 24.
`
`1.
`
`Dickinson, Mendez ‘221 and their combination do not teach “wherein
`
`each said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy of a previous
`
`state of said data, and a difference transaction generator” of claim 24
`
`Regarding claim 24, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s asseition that Dickinson, Mendez ‘22l and their combination disclose “wherein each
`
`said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy ofa previous state of said data, and a
`
`difference transaction generator,” as claimed. However, as discussed above, Dickinson does not
`
`teach that each of the asserted sync engines includes a difference transaction generator.
`
`Accordingly, Dickinson, Mendez ‘221 and their combination fail to teach “wherein each
`
`said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a
`
`difference transaction generator” of claim 24.
`
`-11-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSl—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`2.
`
`Dickinson, Mendez ‘22l and their combination do not teach “wherein
`
`data transfer between the first device, the second device and the
`
`storage server comprises difference transactions” of claim 27
`
`Regarding claim 27, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Dickinson, Mendez ‘22l and their combination disclose “wherein data
`
`transfer between the first device, the second device and the storage server comprises difference
`
`transactions,” as claimed. However, as discussed above, Dickinson does not teach any difference
`
`transactions.
`
`Accordingly, Dickinson, Mendez ‘221 and their combination fail to teach “wherein data
`
`transfer between the first device, the second device and the storage server comprises difference
`
`transactions” of claim 27.
`
`3.
`
`The rejections of claims 3, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`
`allegedly being obvious over Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘22l are
`overcome
`
`Thus, Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘22l does not disclose “wherein each said sync
`
`engine comprises a data inteiface, a copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference
`
`transaction generator,” as recited in claim 24. Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘22l also does not
`
`disclose “wherein data transfer between the first device, the second device and the storage sewer
`
`comprises difference transactions,” as recited in claim 27. For at least the reasons discussed,
`
`Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘221 does not render obvious claims 3, 24, 25 and 27, because
`
`Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘22l does not render obvious each and every element of those
`
`claims.
`
`Patent Owner therefore submits that the rejections of claims 3, 24, 25 and 27 are
`
`overcome and respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 3, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§l03(a) as allegedly being obvious in view of Dickinson in view of Mendez ‘22l be withdrawn.
`
`D.
`
`Mendez ‘S90 fails to anticipate claims 1, 3, 11, 24, 25 and 27 of the ‘757
`
`patent
`
`-12-
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSl—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`The pending Office Action rejects Claims I, 3, ll, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § l02(a)
`
`and 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as allegedly being anticipated by Mendez ‘590. See, Office Action at 9.
`
`Mendez ‘590 was cited and considered during the original prosecution. This reference, however,
`
`fails to anticipate “a data store coupled to the network and in communication with the first and
`
`second systems; and a second sync engine on the second system coupled to receive the difference
`
`information in the difference transaction from the data store via the network, and interfacing with
`
`data on the second system to update said data on the second system with said difference
`
`information.” See, claim 1 of the ‘757 patent. This reference also fails to anticipate “a storage
`
`server having an Internet connection.” See, claim 24 of ‘757 patent. This reference further fails
`
`to anticipate “wherein each said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy of a previous state
`
`of said data, and a difference transaction generator." See, claims 1 and 24 of ‘757 patent.
`
`Claims 1 and 24 are independent. Claims 3, 11, 25 and 2? depend from claims 1 and 24,
`
`respectively.
`
`1.
`
`Mendez ‘590 does not teach “a data store coupled to the network and
`
`in communication with the first and second systems” of claim 1
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Mendez ‘S90 discloses “a data store coupled to the network and in
`
`communication with the first and second systems,” as claimed.
`
`The Requester characterizes a client’s workspace data 136 or 1 16 as a data store and the
`
`server’s workspace data 120 also as a data store. See, Request at 82-83. However, workspace
`
`data is not the same as a data store. One skilled in the art understands that data is a body of
`
`information, whereas a data store is a repository for storing data and isnt the data itself.
`
`Accordingly, Mendez ‘S90 fails to teach “a data sto1‘e coupled to the network and in
`
`communication with the first and second systems" of claim 1.
`
`2.
`
`Mendez ‘590 does not teach “a second sync engine on the second
`
`system coupled to receive the difference information in the difference
`
`transaction from the data store via the network, and interfacing with
`
`data on the second system to update said data on the second system
`
`with said difference information” of claim 1
`
`_]3_
`
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`Dropbox Ex. 1008
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No.: FUSI—U4l 02
`
`PATENT
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Office Action incorporates by reference and adopts the
`
`Requester’s assertion that Mendez ‘590 discloses “a second sync engine on the second system
`
`coupled to receive the difference information in the difference transaction from the data store via
`
`the network, and interfacing with data on the second system to update said data on the second
`
`system with said difference information,” as claimed.
`
`The Requester states that Mendez ‘590 teaches a system for synchronizing data between a
`
`first system and a second system, and provides three scenarios: client (acting as a first system) to
`
`client (acting as a second system), client (acting as a first system) to server (acting as a second
`
`system), and sewer (acting as a first system) to client (acting as a second system). The Requester
`
`also states that the same system is for use specifically with e—mail data in Figure 8. See, Request
`
`at 76-79. The Requester characterizes a client’s base system I 18 or 146 as a sync engine and the
`
`server’s synchronization agent 124 also as a sync engine. See, Request at 79-81. Also, the
`
`Requester characterizes a client’s workspace data 136 or 1 16 as a data store and the server’s
`
`workspace data 120 also as a data store. See, Request at 82-83. (Since “the same system [is] for
`
`use specifically with e—mail data in Fig. 8,” the following Mendez ‘S90 remarks pertain to
`
`components discussed with respect to Figures 1-7, while remarks pertaining to Figure 8 a1'e
`
`omitted for sake of brevity and clarity.) Based on such characterizations, neither of the asserted
`
`sync engines receives any data fhom an asserted data store.
`
`As discussed above, workspace data is not the same as a data store. One skilled in the art
`
`understands that data is a body of information, whereas a data store is a repositoiy for storing
`
`data and is not the data itself. Even if somehow workspace data can be considered the same as a
`
`data store (which we do not admit), Mendez ‘590 does not teach that difference infor