Ex Parte Schwitters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

12359698 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/359,698 01/26/2009
124190 7590 02/09/2016
Remarck Law Group PLC
(Google Technology Holdings LLC)
PO Box 210958
Auburn Hills, MI 48321
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chad SCHWITTERS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
40146/34801 (SBL08476) 4906
EXAMINER
CHEEMA, AZAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mailbox@remarck.com
gail@remarck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAD SCHWITTERS,
ANDY KISPERT, and ANDY PETERSON
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application concerns "a system and method for a direct social
network." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a first computing device of a social network having a first
contact list, the first contact list including a first plurality of
users; and
a second computing device of the social network having a
second contact list, the second contact list including a second
plurality of users,
wherein a transceiver of the first computing device directly
requests data from the second computing device,
wherein a transceiver of the second computing device
transmits the requested data when a user of the first computing
device is one of the second plurality of users, and
wherein the second computing device does not transmit the
requested data when the user of the first computing device is
not one of the second plurality of users.
1 Appellants identify Motorola Mobility LLC as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yokota et al.
Ims et al.
Svendsen et al.
US 2009/0271656 Al
US 2009/0328205 Al
US 8,285,810 B2
THE REJECTIONS2
Oct. 29, 2009
Dec. 31, 2009
Oct. 9, 2012
1. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ims and Svendsen.
2. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over IMS, Svendsen, and Yokota.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections were improper because
Ims in combination with Svendsen do[ es] not show or suggest
'wherein a transceiver of the first computing device directly
requests data from the second computing device' as recited by
Applicant's independent claim 1 and 'receiv[ing] a request for
data, from a transceiver of a first computing device having a
first user, directly at a second computing device' as recited by
Applicant's independent claims 11 and 20.
(App. Br. 6.)
Appellants also argue that the rejection of claims 9 and 19 was
improper, as there would have been no motivation to combine Yokota
because its "first server" does not have any contact list. (App. Br. 7-9.)
2 See Final Act. 3, 18.
3
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8, 10--18, and 20
Each of claims 1, 11, and 20 requires that a "first computing device"
request data from a "second computing device" and that the request for data
be made "directly." The Specification explains that "[a]ccording to an
exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the direct social network
100 may be configured to enable the MUs 105-115 and the desktop 120 to
request and receive data directly from each other" such that "the direct social
network 100 may enable a data exchange independent of the server 125, in
contrast to conventional social networks that require the request and data
exchange to occur via a server." (Spec. i-f 16; see also id. i-f 26.)
The Examiner relies on the following passages of Svendsen to show
the direct request:
Note that for media items in the aggregate media collection 28-
1 that are shared by the user 16-N, the media player function
24= 1 may request streaming of those media items from the user
device 14-N to the user 50 device 14-1 directly or via the
central server 12 as needed. Alternatively, the media player
function 24-1 may request downloading of the shared media
items from the user device 14-N directly or via the central
server 12 as needed.
(Svendsen 7:47-54); and
First, the user device 14-2 joins the subnetwork 34 (step 200).
For example, the user device 14-2 may join the subnetwork 34
by connecting to an access point through which the user devices
14-1and14-2 are both connected to the network 18. The access
point may be, for example, a LAN router. Assuming that
sharing of the local media collection 26-2 of the user 16-2 is
enabled, the media collection information for the local media
collection 26-2 of the user 16-2 is provided or made available
for download to the user device 14-1 (step 202). Likewise, the
media collection information for the local media collection 26-1
4
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
of the user 16-1 is provided or made available for download to
the user device 14-2 (step 204). Note that the user devices 14-1
and 14-2 may automatically detect one another on the
subnetwork 34 and, in response to such detection, automatically
exchange their media collection information or make their
media collection information available for download. The user
device 14-1 may automatically detect the shared media
collection of the user device 14-2 or automatically receive a
notification of the shared media collection from the user device
14-2. Likewise, the user device 14-2 may automatically detect
the shared media collection of the user device 14-1 or
automatically receive a notification of the shared media
collection from the user device 14-1.
(Svendsen 8:52-9:8).
We agree with the Examiner's finding (see Final Act. 5---6 & Ans. 3-
6) that these passages teach or suggest a direct request for data from one user
device to another user device. For example, the second passage explains
that "the user devices ... may automatically detect one another on the
subnetwork ... and, in response to such detection, automatically exchange
their media collection information or make their media collection
information available for download." Nothing in that paragraph indicates
that a server or other intermediate device is involved, and the fact that the
two devices are on the subnetwork, while the server is not, supports the
notion that the server is not required.
We disagree with Appellants' argument that "[w]hen a user device 14-
1 wants to play a media item from the aggregated media collection Svendsen
col. 18 lines 40-50 clearly mentions sending the request for media items to
the central server 12" (App. Br. 6) because the cited passage concerns only a
5
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
feature where the system will search for media when a user creates a playlist
of items not in their media collection.3 (See Svendsen 18:37--47.)
For these reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 20, as
well as the rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-18, which are not
argued separately.
Claims 9 and 19
Claim 9 recites that "the server transmits the requested data to the first
computing device when the second computing device is unavailable" and
claim 19 requires "transmitting the requested data from the server to the first
computing device when the second computing device is unavailable." These
claims each depend from a claim that adds a server to the independent claim.
The Examiner found this feature in Yokota' s mirroring and concluded
that it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Ims and
Svendsen to allow the copying of data when the original source was
unavailable. (Final Act. 19.)
Appellants argue that the modification is improper because "Yokota's
second server could not mirror the media (web resources or media
collections) of Ims or Svendsen because the second server lacks a social
relationship with both the resource owner and the other users." (App. Br. 8.)
This argument is misplaced. The combination contemplates having a
backup of the resource owner's data available should the resource owner's
3 The paragraph cited by Appellants also states that "while the system 10 of
FIG. 1 utilizes a central server 12, the present invention is not limited
thereto" and "[a]ll or a portion of the functionality of the central server 12
may be distributed among one or more of the user devices 14-1 through 14-
N." (Id. 18:26-30.) In the case ofN=2, the requests would of necessity be
directly between the two devices.
6
Appeal2014-004836
Application 12/359,698
machine go otlline or become unavailable. The second server need not have
a "social relationship with both the resource owner and the other users"
because it is merely serving a backup for a user that does have such a
relationship. Id. We agree with the Examiner that having a backup copy of
data available would have been obvious in light of Yokota. See KSR Int 'l.
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (explaining that "if a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill").
We according! y affirm the rejection of claims 9 and 19.
DECISION
For the reasons enumerated above, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
RWK
7