Ex Parte Evans et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2016

12890314 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/890,314 09/24/2010 107508 7590 05/03/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/ Amazon, Inc Eighth Floor, Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Ethan Z. Evans 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. 90204-791196 (020000US) 8089 EXAMINER KRISHNAN, RAJESHWARI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com A TI-Patents@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ETHAN Z. EV ANS, LUIS FELIPE CABRERA, HILLIARD BRUCE SIEGEL, and PETER N. DESANTIS Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-22 and 24--27. App. Br. 3. Claim 23 is canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 27, 2013, "App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed February 24, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed April 30, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed September 24, 2010, "Spec.") for their respective details. Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a cloud-based content management service. See Abstract. Claims 1, 5, 25, and 27 are independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with some paragraphing added: 1. A computer-implemented method of dynamically determining at least one format of content to be synchronized between electronic devices, comprising: under control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions, receiving a first request to register a first electronic device for a user with a content management service; obtaining information about applications and files stored on the first device; receiving a second request to register a second electronic device for the user with the content management service; determining rights that the user has to the applications and files stored on the first electronic device; sending a request to the second electronic device requesting capability information for the second electronic device; receiving a response from the second electronic device including capability information for the second electronic device; monitoring performance of the second electronic device with respect to at least one application or file; based at least in part on the capability information for the 2 Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 second electronic device, the monitored performance of the second electronic device and the rights that the user has to the applications and files, determining at least one format of at least a portion of the applications and files appropriate for the second electronic device; and causing at least a portion of the applications and files to be stored to the second electronic device in the at least one format, wherein the first and second electronic devices are substantially synchronized with respect to the applications and files, the first and second electronic devices capable of storing different formats of at least one common application or file. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Hegde Gabriel Drieu US 2002/0007418 Al US 2006/0015580 Al US 2009/0259711 Al Jan. 17,2002 Jan. 19.2006 ()ct. 15~ :2()()~} Mick West, Sharing Two Kindles, How does it work? available at http://mickwest.com., March 22, 2008. MobileRead Forums, 2 Kindles, available at http://www.mobileread.com/forums/shmvthread.php?t=40328, 2/26/2009. The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1--4, 5-11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20-22, 24, 25, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Gabriel and Hegde. Final Act. 3-18. 2. Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Gabriel, Hegde, and West. Final Act. 18-20. 3. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over 3 Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 Gabriel, Hegde, and MobileRead Forum. Final Act. 20-21. 4. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Gabriel, Hegde, and Drieu. Final Act. 21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-22 and 24--27 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in Appellants' Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-24. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 OVER GABRIEL AND HEGDE Substantially synchronized with respect to ... applications and files. The Examiner finds Gabriel's disclosure of a "'computer-implemented method for distributing multimedia objects,"' teaches the claimed computer- 4 Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 implemented method of dynamically determining at least one format of content to be synchronized between electronic devices. Final Act. 4. Appellants contend Gabriel enables a user to "'continue watching [a previously paused] movie [originally played on a set-top box] from where he left off.'" Appellants argue this does not teach the claimed "substantially synchronized with respect to ... applications and files" at least because "'applications and files"' differ from "'a multimedia object."' App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds the claims recite "at least a portion of the applications and files" to be synchronized between devices, but do not define the term "applications and files." However Appellants' Specification discloses a method to "'enable content such as applications, media files, user data, and other information to be synchronized between devices."' Ans. 3 (citing Spec., Â§ 14). Thus, the Examiner finds Appellants' Specification supports a definition of "applications and files" to include Gabriel's streamed media files. Moreover, Gabriel discloses, the scope of "'multimedia objects"' includes applications, executable scripts, and graphical and interactive structures including avatars, games, and graphical tools. Ans. 4 (citing Gabriel, Â§ 90). Thus, the Examiner find Gabriel's multimedia objects correspond to the claimed "applications and files." Id. Causing at least a portion of . .. applications and files to be stored. Appellants additionally argue Gabriel teaches a process where a multimedia object (i.e., "movie') server resumes the streaming from the point where the prior viewing was paused. Appellants contend that resumption of streaming is not the same as the claimed "'causing at least a portion of ... applications and files to be stored."' App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds 5 Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 Gabriel enables a user to start watching a movie by streaming it to a set-top box in the HD format, saving a viewing state of the movie when the movie is paused and allowing the user to continue watching the movie on a handheld device in MPEG-4 format. Ans. 4 (citing Gabriel i-fi-1 46-48). The saved "viewing state of the movie" corresponds to the claimed "'causing at least a portion of ... applications and files to be stored.'" Ans. 4--5. Determining at least one format of at least a portion of the applications and files appropriate for the second electronic device. Appellants contend the cited art fails to teach, based on the capability of the second device and the user's rights "determining at least one format of at least a portion of the applications and files appropriate for the second electronic device," as claimed. App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds Gabriel enables a user to start watching a movie by streaming it to a set-top box in the HD format; saving a viewing state of the movie when the movie is paused and allowing the user to continue watching the movie on a handheld device in MPEG-4 format. Ans. 4. (citing Gabriel i-fi-1 46-48). Thus, the Examiner finds these limitations are taught. Id. Appellants do not file a reply to the Examiner's findings in the Answer and have not persuaded us the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claim 1. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 5 OVER GABRIEL AND HEGDE Appellants contend that independent Claim 5 is allowable for substantially the reasons advanced in support of Claim 1. App. Br. 13-16. 6 Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 In view of the foregoing discussion, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent Claim 5. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 25 OVER GABRIEL AND HEGDE Appellants contend that independent cClaim 25 is allowable for substantially the reasons advanced in support of Claim 1. App. Br. 17-20. In view of the foregoing discussion, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent Claim 25. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 27 OVER GABRIEL AND HEGDE Appellants contend that independent Claim 25 is allowable for substantially the reasons advanced in support of Claim 1. App. Br. 21-23. In view of the foregoing discussion, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent Claim 27. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2--4, 6-22, 24, AND 26 OVER GABRIEL AND HEGDE Appellants contend that dependent Claims 2--4, 6-22, 24, and 26 are allowable for substantially the reasons advanced in support of Claim 1. App. Br. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent Claims 2--4, 6- 22, 24, and 26. CLAIMS 12, 15, AND 16 OVER GABRIEL, HEGDE, AND WEST AND MOBILEREAD Appellants contend that neither West, nor MobileRead cure the deficiencies of Gabriel and Hegde. App. Br. 23-24. In view of the foregoing discussion, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner has 7 Appeal2014-006197 Application 12/890,314 erred in rejecting dependent Claims 12, 15, and 16. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-22 and 24--27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8