UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON"

Donald Kelly
7 years ago
Views:

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte NOEL WAYNE ANDERSON Appeal Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL

2010-002383 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E.

3 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 25, 26, and 28. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to an information distribution system which anticipates what information may be needed to perform an upcoming task and downloads the information in advance of the user s needs. The information is downloaded based upon the availability and speed of communication links available at the user s current location and intermediate stopping locations in route to the destination where the information may be needed. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellant s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A computer implemented method for managing access to data stored in at least one centralized location, the method comprising: a) identifying at least one data file that may be needed at a destination location by an end user having a processor; b) determining i) a route from a current location of the end user to the destination location with an intermediate stopping location between the current location and the destination location, ii) a projected time the end user will remain at the current location and the intermediate stopping location before going to the destination location, and iii) various types of data connections available at the current location and the intermediate stopping location along the route; c) identifying an available data connection access time to the various data connections that will be available for use by the end user's processor at the current location and the intermediate stopping location based on the determined projected time at the current location and the intermediate stopping location; 2

4 The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 25, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. Appeal d) calculating which data files can be downloaded at the current location and which data files can be downloaded at the intermediate location using an anticipated download time for each relevant data file and the available data connection access time for the current location and the intermediate location; e) using the calculations made in step d to assign a priority to each identified data file, if necessary; and f) generating a set of prioritized data download instructions for use by the end user' s processor for downloading the relevant data files while at the current location and when at the intermediate stopping location. REFERENCES Colson US 6,181,994 B1 Jan. 30, 2001 Saari US 6,338,046 B1 Jan. 8, 2002 Kaplan US 6,401,034 B1 Jun. 4, 2002 Hansmann US 2002/ Oct. 3, 2002 Buchanan US 2003/ Oct. 30, 2003 Machii US 2006/ Jul. 6, 2006 REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Kaplan and Buchanan. Answer 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Kaplan, Machii and Buchanan. Answer Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner s Answer mailed on July 23,

each relevant data file and the available data connection access time for the current location and the intermediate location; e) using the calculations made in step d to assign a priority to each

5 The Examiner has rejected claims 3 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Kaplan, Buchanan and Hansmann. Answer The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Kaplan, Buchanan and Machii. Answer The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Kaplan, Buchanan and Saari. Answer ISSUES Independent claim 1 Appellant argues on pages 13 through 19 of the Brief, 2 that the Examiner s rejection of claims 1 and 2 is in error. Appellant s arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Colson, Kaplan, and Buchanan teaches calculating which data files can be downloaded at the current location and which can be downloaded at the intermediate location using an anticipated download time for each relevant data file and the available data connection access time for the current location and the intermediate location as recited in independent claim 1? 3 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant s Appeal Brief dated April 17, We note Appellant s arguments present additional issues, however as this issue is dispositive, we do not reach the other issues presented. 4

The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Kaplan, Buchanan and Saari.

6 Independent claims 11 and 28 Appellant argues on pages 19 through 25 of the Brief, that the Examiner s rejection of claims 11 and 28 are in error. Appellant s arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Colson, Kaplan, Buchanan, and Machii teaches prioritizing the data files to be downloaded at each stopping locations based upon an estimated time the data connections will be available at the en route locations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner s rejection and the Examiner s response to the Appellant s arguments. We concur with Appellant s conclusion that a) the combination of the references teaches calculating which data files can be downloaded at the current location and which can be downloaded at the intermediate location using an anticipated download time for each relevant data file and the available data connection access time for the current location and the intermediate location as recited in independent claim 1; and b) that the combination of the references teaches prioritizing the data files to be downloaded at each stopping locations based upon an estimated time the data connections will be available at the en route locations as recited in claims 11 and 28. The Examiner relies upon Buchannan s teachings of prioritizing downloads to multiple clients based upon remaining download times to teach the argued limitations. Answer 5, 6, 9, and 20. We disagree. As argued by Appellant, the different locations recited in the claims are locations of a user along a route, not different clients as taught by Buchanan. 5

each stopping locations based upon an estimated time the data connections will be available at the en route locations?

7 Answer 17 and 23. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner s rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of independent claims 1, 11, and 28 or the dependent claims. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 25, 26, and 28 is reversed. REVERSED tj 6

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NIRMAL MUKUND KARI, SCOTT WILLIAM PETRICK, and CHRISTOPHER UNGER Appeal 2011-002161 Technology Center 2600 Before