Ex Parte SvendsenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 28, 201512251530 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/251,530 10/15/2008 Hugh Svendsen CT-MED-048/US (P357) 5780 71739 7590 01/29/2015 Concert Technology Corporation 5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER TRAN, BAO G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/29/2015 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 HUGH SVENDSEN ____________ Appeal 2012-008235 Application 12/251,530 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008235 Application 12/251,530 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–25, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method of operation of a user device of a user comprising: joining a media sharing system including the user device of the user and one or more other user devices of a corresponding one or more other users such that the one or more other users have access to a shared media collection of the user of the user device, the shared media collection of the user of the user device comprising one or more first media items stored locally at the user device and one or more second media items stored remotely at a secondary device of the user; receiving a request from a requesting user device of the one or more other user devices for a desired media item of the one or more second media items stored at the secondary device of the user; obtaining the desired media item from the secondary device; and providing the desired media item to the requesting user device. Prior Art Khedouri US 2006/0008256 A1 Jan. 12, 2006 King US 2006/0195902 A1 Aug. 31, 2006 Appeal 2012-008235 Application 12/251,530 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 8–11, and 17–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by King. Claims 2–7, 12–17, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King and Khedouri. ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 8–11, and 17–24 Claim 1 recites “the shared media collection of the user of the user device comprising one or more first media items stored locally at the user device and one or more second media items stored remotely at a secondary device of the user.” The Examiner finds the computing device 1 shown in Figure 3 of King discloses the claimed user device, and the external devices 1–3 each disclose the claimed secondary device of the user. Ans. 19. The Examiner further finds King discloses storing media collections on both the computing device 1 and the external devices 1–3. Id. Appellants contend King does not disclose whether devices 105, 110, 115, 120, 310, and 315 shown in Figures 1–3 belong to the same user and have a shared media collection of the same user. App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 3–5. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. King discloses a computing device and external devices, which together store a media collection. King Fig. 3 and ¶¶ 32, 35 (one of the computing devices “requests access to a media collection on other computing devices and/or network enabled devices” (emphasis added)). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish Appeal 2012-008235 Application 12/251,530 4 a user storing a media collection locally on a computing device and remotely on network enabled devices as disclosed by King from a “media collection of the user of the user device comprising one or more first media items stored locally at the user device and one or more second media items stored remotely at a secondary device of the user” as recited in claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8–11, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Section 103 rejection of claims 2–7, 12–17, and 25 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2–7, 12–17, and 25, which fall with claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 8–11, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by King is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2–7, 12–17, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King and Khedouri 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation