Ex Parte Ezra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2014

11165317 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSEF EZRA
____________________

Appeal 2011-005964
Application 11/165,317
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005964
Application 11/165,317
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–39, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Appellant’s invention relates to a client backing up files to a server
that is assigned by a client and periodically verifying the most recent
versions of the files are present on the server or restoring backed-up files
from the server to a workstation where a client resides. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A workstation, comprising:
a storage device having at least one file have a last
change timestamp;
a network connection; and
a client executed by a processor that is in communication
with the storage device and the network connection, where the
client has access to a database that contains the last change
timestamp and uses the last change timestamp to make a
determination if the at least one file is sent via the network
connection to another workstation, where a message received at
the network connection from a controller that identifies the
other workstation and where the controller may operate as the
workstation if the other workstation is unavailable.

Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–39 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Crawford (US 5,771,354), Kihara (US 6,625,625 B1), and
Gordon (US 2003/0023810 A1). Ans. 3–8.

Appeal 2011-005964
Application 11/165,317
3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (“Br.” filed Sep. 21, 2010). We refer to the
Brief and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 9, 2010) for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1–39
Crawford, Kihara, and Gordon
Appellant argues all claims as a group. Br. 9–11. We select claim 1
for analysis as representative of the group. All claims stand or fall with
claim 1.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because “[t]here
is no functionality of the controller that sends the message identifying where
to send the file and the controller storing the file (acting as the workstation)
if the other workstation is unavailable in the '810 publication.” Id. at 10.
Appellant further argues Appellant’s claim “the message instruction where
files are sent occurs once a determination has been made to send the file.”
Id.
We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner correctly points out
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner that “the argued limitation where to
send the file and the controller storing the file is not presented in the claim.”
Id. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments (Br. 9–11) amount to an unpersuasive
attack on individual references when the rejection is based on a combination.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion regarding the rejection of
claim 1. Ans. 3–5, 9–11. Based on the record before us, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous.
Appeal 2011-005964
Application 11/165,317
4

CONCLUSIONS
Because the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–39 as
obvious, we sustain the rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–39 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