Ex Parte Osborne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

14221993 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/221,993 03/21/2014
66547 7590 08/31/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John OSBORNE
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.
678-3726 CIP CON 2 1512
EXAMINER
AJAYI, JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 JOHN OSBORNE and DAVID W. RUSSELL
Appeal2015-005759
Application 14/221,993
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005759
Application 14/221,993
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claim 30. Claims 1-29, 31 and 32 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a method and
apparatus for storing and retrieving profile data for electronic devices."
(Title).
B. CLAIM
30. A method for managing personal data, comprising:
storing, on an electronic device, personal data associated with a
user account of a user, the user account being stored on a server
and being configured to allow a plurality of electronic devices to
be associated with it, where one or more sets of personal data
associated with the user account are selected by the user to be
subject to archival functions among all electronic devices
associated with the user account, the archival functions
comprising at least one of a backup operation and a restore
operation;
performing the backup operation, when one of the selected one
or more sets of personal data stored on the electronic device is
changed, by automatically uploading to the server the changed
personal data so as to update the personal data on all other
electronic devices associated with the user account; and
performing the restore operation by receiving from the server
personal data which comprises one of the selected one or more
sets of personal data and which has been changed by another of
the all electronic devices associated with the user account and
2
Appeal2015-005759
Application 14/221,993
updating the personal data stored on the electronic device with
the changed personal data received from the server.
C. REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claim on appeal:
Pesola US 2003/0125057 Al July 3, 2003
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable
over Pesola.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Pesola implicitly or explicitly discloses
the user account being stored on a server and being configured
to allow a plurality of electronic devices to be associated with it,
where one or more sets of personal data associated with the user
account are selected by the user to be subject to archival
functions among all electronic devices associated with the user
account.
(claim 1 ) .
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Pesola
1. Pesola discloses portable computer devices include a computer
readable storage medium for storing managed data in addition to a client
synchronized application. (i-f 13).
3
Appeal2015-005759
Application 14/221,993
2. Managed data is stored in files that will subsequently be shared.
(iT 13)
3. Portable computing devices may make modifications to managed
data, including adding new information, modifying existing information and
deleting information. (Id.).
4. Client synchronization application generates synchronizing
information based on modifications to managed data. Synchronization
information is used to synchronize managed data. (Id.).
5. Managed data modified by a portable computing device generates
corresponding synchronization information which is subsequently used by a
synchronization sever application to provide synchronization of the managed
data. (iT 17).
6. Managed data sets are associated with mobile computing devices
and users. (iT 16).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend, regarding Pesola, "[T]here is no teaching or
suggestion of a user selecting sets of data for archival functions." (App.
Br. 5). Appellants moreover contend "[S]election is never mentioned in
Pesola and, a fortiori, no entity in Pesola ever selects which documents are
to be shared. (App. Br. 6). Appellants further argue, "Pesola makes no
mention of a user account being stored on a server, as recited in Claim 30."
(App. Br. 6).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of claim 30. Instead, we agree with the Examiner's
4
Appeal2015-005759
Application 14/221,993
findings, and are unpersuaded of error with the Examiner's finding that
claim 30 would have been anticipated by Pesola.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
We note that although Appellants contend, "[T]here is no teaching or
suggestion of a user selecting sets of data for archival functions" (App.
Br. 5), claim 30 does not recite any "selecting" step. That is, claim 30 is
directed to a "method for managing data" that does not require any
"selecting" step but instead comprises a "storing" step for storing data
associated with a user account, wherein the "data" are described as being
"selected by the user to be subject to archival functions" (claim 30, emphasis
added).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding Pesola's
modified managed data comprises data that was "selected" to be modified,
(FF 1-3, Ans. 3). In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding that to
modify data, "the user gets to choose [i.e., select] what data they modify"
(Ans. 3). Thus, in view of the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the
claims, we are unconvinced that the Examiner's erred in concluding "data ...
selected by the user" encompasses Pesola's data selected to be modified.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Pesola discloses that
the data is "to be subject to archival functions" (Ans. 3). In particular,
Pesola discloses storing and synchronizing the selected data, which is
subsequently retrieved and reused (FF 4--5, Ans. 3). That is, we agree that
the selected data that is stored and subsequently reused is subject to archival
functions.
5
Appeal2015-005759
Application 14/221,993
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding claim
term "user account ... subject to archival functions among all electronic
devices associated with the user account" (App. Br.6) and agree with the
Examiner's finding that Pesola teaches there is an account for each mobile
device in the database 60 because database 60 includes a plurality of
managed data sets with each data set associated with one or more mobile
devices or users. (FF 6, Ans. 4).
Therefore, on this record, we are unconvinced of Examiner error in
the rejection of independent claim 30 over Pesola.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6