Ex Parte Winbush

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2015

12645806 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2015)

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.
12/645,806 12/23/2009 Amos Winbush III P/5004-5 (V14260) 8961
2352 7590 10/28/2015
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403
EXAMINER
MOE, AUNG SOE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMOS WINBUSH III
____________

Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN G. NEW, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 38–54 and 56–62. Claim 55 is
canceled. App. Br. 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies himself as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to user content
management and synchronization for cameras and camcorders with
user records maintained at a central node, such as at a web server, and
porting and sharing data content among other devices. Spec. ¶ 1.2
Claim 38 is representative and reads as follows:
38. A system for porting user content between a first user
device and a second user device over the internet via a central
node, the system comprising:

a first user content synchronization module positioned in
the first user device and configured to synchronize
automatically files of user content uploaded via the internet to
the central node from the second user device by determining
whether any of the files of user content at the central node are
more recently changed, deleted or added than corresponding
files of user content stored at the first user device [hereinafter,
the “first user content synchronization module limitation”];

a second user content synchronization module positioned
in the second user device and configured to synchronize with
the first user device by uploading via the internet the files of
user content to the central node by determining whether any of
the files of user content at the second user device are more
recently changed, deleted or added than corresponding files of
user content stored at the central node [hereinafter, the “second
user content synchronization module limitation”];

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 27, 2012
(“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Jan. 28, 2013 (“App. Br.”) and
Reply Brief filed July 29, 2013 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 29, 2013 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed Dec. 23,
2009 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

3
a third user content synchronization module positioned at
the central node and configured to transmit automatically to the
first user device the user content; and

a user preference module configured to receive a user
command for initiating synchronization by activating at least
one of the first user content synchronization module, the second
user content synchronization module, or the third user content
synchronization module.

References

Fukasawa US 6,909,457 B1 June 21, 2005
Strong US 2006/0101064 A1 May 11, 2006
Montulli US 2006/0189348 A1 Aug. 24, 2006
Gustavsson US 2008/0120369 A1 May 22, 2008
Retief US 2011/0196826 A1 Aug. 11, 2011

Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 38–49, 51–54, 56, 58, 60, and 62 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strong and
Gustavsson.
2. Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strong and Retief.
3. Claim 57 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strong, Gustavsson, and Montulli.
4. Claim 59 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strong, Gustavsson, and Fukasawa.
5. Claim 61 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strong, Gustavsson, Montulli, and Fukasawa.

Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. Unless otherwise noted, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–13) and in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–5) and
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we
consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief
(App. Br. 5–11) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–3).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 38 and 62
Regarding claim 38, Appellant contends Strong fails to disclose the
first and second user content synchronization module limitations and argues
further that Gustavsson does not cure the deficiencies of Strong. App. Br.
5–9. In particular, Appellant contends Strong does not disclose or suggest
“a first user content synchronization module positioned in the first user
device that is configured to synchronize automatically files of user content
uploaded via the internet through the central node from the second user
device by determining whether any of the files of user content at the central
node are more recently changed, deleted or added, as required by claim 38.”
Id. at 6 (emphasis in original). Appellant also argues Strong fails to teach or
suggest “a second user content synchronization module positioned in the
second user device and configured to synchronize with the first user device
. . . by determining whether any of the files of user content at the second user
device are more recently changed, deleted or added than corresponding files
of user content stored at the central node.” Id. at 8.
Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

5
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant
acknowledges that, in paragraph 26, Strong “explains that each client has the
ability to communicate with the server and have the appropriate software
running thereon and that the sharing client 34 may operate [to] synchronize a
local database on the local computer with a remote database, such as a server
database on a data store 40,” as shown in Figure 3 of Strong. App. Br. 6. In
regard to the disclosure in paragraph 34 of Strong that a log is provided by
the server 22 to sharing client 34 which “indicates object identifiers for the
objects that have been modified, added, or deleted in the server’s datastore,”
Appellant argues that Strong does not specify exactly how the log provided
to the sharing client is then used and that, in the context of Strong, the server
22 is performing this synchronization, rather than the client 34. App. Br. at
6–9; Reply Br. 3. Although Appellant argues that the synchronization in
Strong is performed only by the server, the Examiner finds that, in
accordance with the definition of “synchronization” in paragraph 50 of the
Specification, the client devices of Strong perform synchronization by
identifying records that need to be updated using the log provided by the
server as described in paragraph 34 of Strong, requesting records from the
server that need added or updated, and updating the records on the device.
Ans. 2–4. We agree with the Examiner.
First, the Examiner finds, as provided in paragraph 34 of Strong, the
synchronization engine of Strong provides a log of changes to the sharing
client that “indicates object identifiers for the objects that have been
modified, added, or deleted in the server’s datastore.” Ans. 3. Second,
contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds the sharing client of
Strong would use the log to identify records from the server that need
Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

6
updated and then request those records. Id. We agree with this finding
because, as the Examiner states, “there could be no files added to or
modified on the client unless [they] are requested. Strong must use the log
as the basis for the request, as the log is otherwise useless.” Id. We further
agree with the Examiner that the log is a list of changed objects in the
server’s data store, instead of a customized list of updated files for the client
to retrieve, as Appellant argues. Ans. 4; App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Third, the
Examiner finds, in accordance with the definition of “synchronization” in
the Specification, the client device in Strong updates the records on itself.
Id. at 4. We agree with this finding because Appellant’s definition of
synchronization includes the device receiving records from the server that
need updated and, as the Examiner finds, updating the local device is a
function of the hardware on the local device. Id. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Strong teaches or suggests “a first user content
synchronization module positioned in the first user device that is configured
to synchronize automatically files of user content uploaded via the internet
through the central node from the second user device by determining
whether any of the files of user content at the central node are more recently
changed, deleted or added.”
Regarding the second user content synchronization module limitation,
Appellant argues it calls for “a second user device that performs the kind of
determination performed by the first user device.” App. Br. 8. Appellant
also argues this limitation requires a second user device synchronize with the
first user device with reference to content at the central node and that Strong
is silent as to such a synchronization and such a determination. Id. Citing
paragraph 22 of Strong, the Examiner finds Strong’s system keeps
Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

7
added/changed/deleted files consistent across multiple clients via a server.
Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Based on this finding and
for the reasons stated supra regarding the first user content synchronization
module limitation, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Strong does not teach or suggest the second user content synchronization
module limitation.
Regarding claim 62, Appellant argues Strong does not teach the first
and second user content synchronization module limitations of the claim for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 38. For the reasons
discussed supra regarding claim 38, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Strong teaches or suggests these limitations. See Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant also argues claim 62 is patentably distinguishable over the cited
art because it “requires that ‘the second user device is positioned remote
from the first user device’ . . . [and] that ‘the central node positioned remote
from the first user device and the second user device.’” App. Br. 10.
However, merely asserting that the cited prior art references do not disclose
a claim limitation is insufficient to show error.3 See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(iv)(2010); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 62,
and claims 39–49, 51–54, 56, 58, and 60, which depend from claim 38 and
are not argued separately.

3 In any event, we note that Strong teaches these limitations. See Strong,
Figures 1 and 3.
Appeal 2013-009694
Application 12/645,806

8
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 50, 57, 59, and 61
Regarding claims 50, 57, 59, and 61, which depend from claim 38,
Appellant argues they are patentably distinguishable over the cited art for the
reasons argued with respect to claim 38. App. Br. 10. For the same reasons
discussed supra regarding claim 38, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 50, 57, 59, and 61.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 38–54 and 56–62 under 35
U.S.C. § 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lv