Ex Parte Holzer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2013

09884741 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID HOLZER
____________

Appeal 2011-004801
Application 09/884,741
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ANDREW
CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests that we reconsider our Decision of November 21,
2012, wherein we sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 17, and 19-28 and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 3, 5, 10-12, 18, 29, and 30, but did not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 13-16. We have reconsidered our Decision of November
21, 2012, in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing,
and we find no error therein. We, therefore, decline to make any changes in
the prior Decision for the reasons which follow.
Appeal 2011-004801
Application 09/884,741

2
Appellant’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing focus on the
contention that, with respect to independent claim 19, our original Decision
erred in concluding that Anderson discloses the claimed feature of “sending
communications automatically…when connected to the network.” In
asserting this contention, Appellant refers to the analysis applied to
independent claim 1 in our original Decision.
As correctly characterized by Appellant (Request 3), our original
Decision concluded that Anderson disclosed the claim 1 feature of “wherein
the first information is sent automatically from the device to the service
aggregator.” In particular, our original Decision determined that claim 1 did
not require that the connection between the camera device and the service
aggregator be made automatically, but only that information be sent
automatically from the camera device to the service aggregator.
Accordingly, our original Decision found that the Examiner did not err in
determining that, although Anderson required a camera user to push a
“Send” button to initially establish an Internet connection or a connection
between the camera and the gateway server, Anderson nonetheless disclosed
the automatic sending of information from the camera to photo-sharing
websites through the gateway server. (Dec. 5).
According to Appellant (Request 3), however, the Board’s logic
applied to the analysis of claim 1 is not properly applied to claim 19 since
claim 19 requires the additional limitation that devices send communications
automatically “when connected” to the network. We do not find Appellant’s
arguments convincing of any error in the original Decision. Contrary to
Appellant’s contention, the fact that a user of a camera device in Anderson
must press a “Send” button to establish an initial network connection before
Appeal 2011-004801
Application 09/884,741

3
the disclosed automatic communications occur is not precluded by the
language “when connected.” In other words, after establishment of an initial
network connection in Anderson, i.e., “when” a connection is established,
communications are automatically sent from camera device to the gateway
server (col. 3, ll. 40-48).

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellant’s request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our original Decision of November 21,
2012, but we deny the request with respect to making any changes therein.
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).

REHEARING DENIED

rwk