Ex Parte Huang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2013

10605950 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHIH-WEN HUANG
____________

Appeal 2011-003711
Application 10/605,950
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DANIEL N. FISHMAN,
and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003711
Application 10/605,950

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-23, 25-32, and 42-48.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of managing files for a
digital apparatus (Spec. ¶¶ [0002] and [0009]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A file managing method comprising:
establishing a folder in a memory of a digital apparatus
and responsive to a selection of an operational mode of the
digital apparatus, the folder having a file type determined
according to the selected operational mode;
capturing a file with the digital apparatus; and
storing the captured file in the memory of the digital
apparatus according to its file type in the folder having the file
type determined according to the selected operational mode.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 19-21, 23, 25-30, 32, and 42-48 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones (US
2002/0118949 A1) and Huang (US 2004/0098379 A1). (See Ans. 4-20).

1 Claims 3, 16, 24, and 33-41 have been canceled.
Appeal 2011-003711
Application 10/605,950

3
Claims 15, 17, 18, 22, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jones, Huang, and Perkes (US 2003/0110503
A1). (See Ans. 21-23).
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because the combination of Jones and Huang fails to teach or suggest the
claimed step of “establishing a folder in a memory of a digital apparatus and
responsive to a selection of an operational mode of the digital apparatus, the
folder having a file type determined according to the selected operational
mode” (Br. 15). Appellant explains that the disputed feature is not taught by
Huang because it is not clear how Huang’s files are organized as the
reference discusses handling the files after they are imported from the
external device (Br. 15-16).
2. Appellant argues the patentability of independent claims 7, 25,
43, and 46, based on the same arguments presented for claim 1 (Br. 17-23).
3. With respect to the remaining claims, Appellant argues that
those claims are patentable because of their dependency from the
independent claims discussed above (Br. 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
the references fail to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
Appeal 2011-003711
Application 10/605,950

4
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence based
on the teachings of Jones and Huang, to each of the above-noted contentions
raised by Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 23-26). We concur with the
conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-
23, 25-32, and 42-48 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-23, 25-32, and 42-48 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-23, 25-32,
and 42-48 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

tj