Ex Parte Hesselink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2014

12853239 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LAMBERTUS HESSELINK
____________________

Appeal 2012-007287
Application 12/853,239
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant
appeared for oral hearing on June 24, 2014.

Appeal 2012-007287
Application 12/853,239

2
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A personal content archive device configured to
consolidate multimedia content for a user, said personal archive
device comprising:
an input interface for receiving a signal indicating when
multimedia content stored on a medium has been received;
a secured storage configured to protect information based
on at least one digital rights management scheme;
a network interface capable of communicating with a
registration service over a network;
and
a processor, configured by instructions, to recognize
receipt of the multimedia content medium based on the signal
from the input interface, register the multimedia content
medium with the registration service, and request download of
an authorized version of the multimedia content into the
secured storage.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belknap (US 2001/0042170 A1; pub. Nov. 15, 2001) and
Raines (US 2007/0250193 A1; pub. Oct. 25, 2007).
Appeal 2012-007287
Application 12/853,239

3
Appellant’s Contention
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
11–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph because the recitation of
“registration service” in claim 1 is clear in view of the disclosure in the
Specification.
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
11–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the cited prior art does not disclose
a personal content archive device comprising a processor configured to
register the multimedia content medium with the registration service, and
request download of an authorized version of the multimedia content into a
secured storage (Br. 14).

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11–17 as indefinite, because the
Appellant’s Specification is clear on what a registration service is?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being obvious because
the cited references fail to suggest the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has
erred. In this regard, we agree with the Appellant that the Specification
makes it clear that a registration service refers to systems and devices for
registering the content from user media collections and is therefore
implemented with hardware (para. 34).
Appeal 2012-007287
Application 12/853,239

4
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has
erred. As to Appellant’s above contention, we agree. In this regard, we find
that Belknap does not disclose a personal archive device having a processor
that registers content with a registration service and requests download of
the content. Rather, Belknap discloses a digital library system that has
library patrons that are granted privileges to use the library system (para.
26). Library patrons request download of library content. In response to a
request from the patron to download content, the library server checks to see
if the library patron has been granted privileges to download the content.
The personal content devices of the library patrons do not request
registration of content (para. 28). Rather, the personal content devices of the
library patrons merely requests content that has been made available by the
content owners (id.).

CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
11–17 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2012-007287
Application 12/853,239

5
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh