Ex Parte Fredlund et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2010

10397825 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

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.
10/397,825 03/26/2003 John R. Fredlund 85566RRS 8707
7590 09/27/2010
Milton S. Sales
Patent Legal Staff
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650-2201
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HAU H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JOHN R. FREDLUND and JOSEPH A. MANICO
_____________

Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for archiving image files with an
external memory system. See Spec: 1-5. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. An imaging system for use with an external memory system,
the imaging system comprising:
a source of content data files;
a communications link adapted to exchange data with the
external memory system; and
a processor adapted to use the communication link to obtain
a record of content data files from the external memory system
said record indicating content data files have been stored by the
external memory system,
wherein said processor is further adapted to use the obtained
record to automatically identify content data files from the
source of content data files that have not been stored by the
external memory system, to prepare the identified content data
files for archival storage by the external memory system and to
cause the external memory system to store the prepared content
data files, and to indicate in the record that the prepared files
have been stored.

REFERENCE
Pavley US 6,445,460 B1 Sep. 3, 2002
Gilbert US 2002/0180764 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Baron US 2004/0201737 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
(filed Aug. 22, 2001)

2
Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 5-10, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baron in view of Pavley. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 2-4, 11-12, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baron in view of Pavley and Gilbert.
Ans. 7-8.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Appellants argue on pages 4-11 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 is in error. Appellants argue that Baron
in view of Pavley does not teach a processor that obtains a record of content
data files from the external memory system, as claimed in independent
claims 1, 9, and 15. App. Br. 5, 11, 15. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and
16-21 are dependent upon claims 1, 9, and 15 (respectively).
Thus, with respect to claims 1-21, Appellants’ contention presents us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Baron in view of Pavley
teaches a processor that obtains a record of content data files from the
external memory system indicating that the content data files have already
been stored by the external memory system?2

2 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claims 1-33. App. Br. 6-
16. We do not reach these additional issues since the issue of whether Baron
in view of Pavley discloses a processor that obtains a record of content data
files from the external memory system is dispositive of the case.
3
Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15. Claim 1 recites “a processor adapted to use
the communication link to obtain a record of content data files from the
external memory system said record indicating content data files have been
stored by the external memory system.” Independent claims 9 and 15 recite
similar limitations. Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-21 depend upon independent
claims 1, 9, and 15. Appellant argues that the combination of Baron in view
of Pavley does not teach a camera processor that obtains a record from the
external memory system indicating that the content data files have already
been stored by the external memory system. App. Br. 7. We agree.
The Examiner finds that Pavley discloses a system wherein a camera
communicates with an external memory system such as a desktop system or
internet server, that the camera’s processor “obtain[s] a record of content
data files from the external memory system, said record indicating content
data files have been stored by the external memory system (through the
archive file attribute),” and that the camera’s processor “is further adapted to
use the obtained record to automatically identify content data files from the
source of content data files that have not been stored by the external memory
system (by examining the archive attribute),” Ans. 4. Therefore, the
Examiner finds that the archive file attribute equates to the record of content
data files, as claimed. We disagree.
Pavley, discussing Figures 6 and 7, discloses that time can be
conserved by
4
Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825

automatically having image transfer occur between the camera
110 and a computer system, e.g., system 1100, in the
photosystem environment. A rule set establishes that image
files not marked as archived are copied from the camera 110 to
the system 1100 upon connection and are then marked as
archived with an archive file attribute by the system 1100. . . .
. . . [W]hen the priority is to save time, the system 1100
determines whether an archive attribute is set for an image file.
When not set, the system 1100 appropriately performs the
action of copying the file from the camera 110 and marking the
file with the archive attribute. If the archive attribute has been
set, the system 1100 can proceed to the next image file.
Col. 6, ll. 10-42.
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 7) that to the extent the Examiner
is reading the recited record on the archive file attributes recorded as part of
the image files stored on the camera in Pavley, that reliance is misplaced
because those attributes are not located on an external memory system, as
required by the claim.
Appellants also address the alternative possibility of obtaining the
archive file attributes from the image files that are stored in Pavley’s
external memory system. Specifically, Appellants argue:
[I]t might be suggested that the camera processor of Pavley
could obtain an archive file attribute from an image data file
that has already been transferred to the external memory. It will
be appreciated that in order for the archive file attributes to be
stored apart from the camera, the decision to copy an image
data file of Pavley from the camera to the external device must
have already been made and executed before such archive file
attributes could have been obtained by the camera processor
from such an external memory system. This result is not
consistent with what is claimed nor is it consistent with the
teachings of Pavley.
5
Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825

(App. Br. 7-8.). For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that
Pavley does not suggest the claimed feature of using the archive file
attributes stored in the external memory system to determine which image
files should be copied from the camera to the external memory system.
The additional teachings of Gilbert do not make up for the
deficiencies noted above. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Baron in view of Pavley discloses
a processor that obtains a record of content data files from the external
memory system indicating that the content data files have already been
stored by the external memory system.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
6
Appeal 2009-005635
Application 10/397,825

REVERSED

ELD

MILTON S. SALES
PATENT LEGAL STAFF
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
343 STATE STREET
ROCHESTER, NY 14650-2201
7