Ex Parte Blumenau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2012

11282451 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte STEVEN BLUMENAU and MATTHEW BARNES
_____________

Appeal 2010-006671
Application 11/282,451
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and HUNG H.
BUI Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 12 through 15, and 18 through 27.
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-006671
Application 11/282,451
2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use in managing digital
assets where the digital asset can be stored on a client’s computer along with
metadata concerning the asset. A copy of the metadata is also stored on a
central metadata device. See paragraphs 0002, 0007, 0008, and 0011 of
Appellants’ Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of providing access to digital
assets of a distributed computing environment, the environment
having at least one central computing device that stores an asset
identification tag for at least one digital asset and one or more client
devices that locally store respective digital assets, the computer-
implemented method comprising:
(a) receiving, by an application executing within the
distributed computing environment, a request for access to a
digital asset;
(b) identifying, by the application, meta-data non-
removably linked to the digital asset, the identified meta-data
being either (i) local meta-data stored at one of the one or more
client devices, or (ii) central meta-data stored at the central
computing device, the central meta-data being a copy of the
local meta-data stored at the one client device;
(c) processing, by the application, the identified meta-
data to identify one or more taxonomy tags associated with the
digital asset;
(d) evaluating, by the application, one or more rules
associated with the identified taxonomy tags to control the
access to the digital asset; and
(e) providing the access, by the application, to the digital
asset when a result of the evaluation indicates that the access to
the digital asset is allowed.

Appeal 2010-006671
Application 11/282,451
3

REFERENCES

Jones US 2002/0188841 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Roever US 2005/0038707 A1 Feb. 17, 2005

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 12
through 15, and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Jones. Answer 3-451.
The Examiner has rejected claims 22 through 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Roever. Answer 45-
57.

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 2 through 4 of the Replacement Appeal
Brief2 that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 is in
error. These arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
finding that Jones teaches digital content is stored on a client device and
metadata associated with the digital asset is either local metadata stored at
one or more client devices or a central metadata, which is a copy of the local
metadata, is stored on a central computing device?

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
January 15, 2010.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Replacement Appeal Brief
dated November 30, 2009 and Reply Brief dated October 26, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006671
Application 11/282,451
4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding Jones teaches digital content is stored on a client device and
metadata associated with the digital asset is either local metadata stored at
one or more client devices or a central metadata, which is a copy of the local
metadata, stored at a central computing device.
The Examiner finds that Jones’ user computer is a client device that
stores the digital asset locally. Answer 63. Further, the Examiner finds that
Jones’ router system or Jones’ metadata database stores the metadata
associated with the digital asset. Answer 64. However, the Examiner’s
findings do not meet the limitations of the independent claims 1, 7 and 13,
which recite the digital asset is on a client computer and the metadata is on a
client computer (or that a copy of the metadata on the client computer is
stored on a central computing device). The Examiner has not shown that
Jones’ router system or Jones’ metadata database contains the digital data.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown that all of the limitations of independent
claims 1, 7 and 13 are anticipated by Jones. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), of independent
claims 1, 7 and 13 or the claims which depend thereupon.
Further, as the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 22 through
27 similarly rely upon the teachings of Jones to teach the limitations of the
independent claims 1, 7 and 13, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as well.

ORDER
Appeal 2010-006671
Application 11/282,451
5

The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 3, 6 through
10, 12 through 15, and 18 through 27 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj