Ex Parte Dunko

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2014

11468428 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2014)

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.
11/468,428 08/30/2006 Gregory A. Dunko 2002-353 4996
54472 7590 07/15/2014
COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
HUA, QUAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY A. DUNKO
____________

Appeal 2011-007630
Application 11/468,428
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to wireless communication devices
configured to receive optically transmitted information (Spec. ¶ 1).
Appeal 2011-007630
Application 11/468,428

2
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A wireless communication device comprising:
an optical sensor configured to receive data being
transmitted by one or more optical transmitters, the data
comprising one or more different parts and one or more
indicator codes that identify corresponding parts of the
transmitted information;
a controller to filter the received data by comparing the
one or more indicator codes in the received data to indicators in
selected user preference information to produce selected
content comprising one or more of the different parts of the
received data; and
a display to display the selected content.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hale (US 6,785,539 B2; Aug. 31, 2004)
(see Ans. 4-6).
Claims 2-10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hale and Albukerk (US 5,929,848; July 27, 1999) (see
Ans. 7-9).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hale, Albukerk, and Ishii (US 2005/0239504 A1; Oct. 27,
2005) (see Ans. 9-10).
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hale (see Ans. 10-11).
Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hale and Lau (US 2002/0168986 A1; Nov. 14, 2002) (see
Ans. 11-12).
Appeal 2011-007630
Application 11/468,428

3
Issues on Appeal
Does Hale teach or suggest “an optical sensor configured to receive
data being transmitted by one or more optical transmitters, the data
comprising one or more different parts and one or more indicator codes that
identify corresponding parts of the transmitted information,” as recited in
claim 1?
Does Albukerk teach or suggest “the controller increases or decreases
the amount of selected content that is being displayed to the user responsive
to user input,” as recited in claim 7?
Does Hale teach or suggest “the controller executes a predetermined
function based on the selected content responsive to user input,” as recited in
claim 13?
Does Hale teach or suggest “the controller accesses a web server
based on a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) included with the selected
content,” as recited in claim 15?

ANALYSIS
We review the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions the Examiner erred. We refer herein to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief filed September 16, 2010 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed
November 24, 2010 (“Ans.”), and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed January 24,
2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appellant argues claim 1 should be interpreted to require an optical
sensor configured to receive one or more different parts of data and one or
more indicator codes in the same data stream (App. Br. 6). Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 17), the
Appeal 2011-007630
Application 11/468,428

4
language of claim 1 only recites an optical sensor configured to receive data
comprising one or more different parts and one or more indicator codes.
Nothing in the claim language requires the data parts and indicator codes be
received in the same data stream. Appellant argues the controller cannot
perform the subsequent filtering recited in claim 1, unless the data parts and
indicator codes are in the same data stream (Reply Br. 3). We disagree. For
example, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 5), the controller in Hale filters
data based on indicator codes received separate from the data itself (Hale
2:39-46). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner claim 1, when given its
broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require receiving the one or
more different data parts and the indicator codes in the same data stream.
Appellant argues Hale does not teach all the limitations of claim 1
because, in Hale, the one or more different data parts are pre-loaded into the
user’s device and thus are not received by the optical sensor in the same data
stream as the indicator codes (App. Br. 7-9). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner claim 1 does
not recite receiving the one or more different data parts and the indicator
codes in the same data stream. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, Appellant argues the device in Albukerk
allows a user to select the type of information displayed, but not the amount
of information (App. Br. 16). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As
the Examiner explains (Ans. 8-9, 24), Figure 4 shows the device in Albukerk
allows a user to select between expert, adult, and child levels. The
corresponding written description of Albukerk teaches that these various
classifications allow a user to retrieve information associated with only
Appeal 2011-007630
Application 11/468,428

5
certain objects (Albukerk 10:34-42). By allowing a user to retrieve
information associated with only certain objects, the device increases or
decreases the amount of selected content responsive to user input, as recited
in claim 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
With respect to claim 13, Appellant argues the portion of Hale cited
by the Examiner in the Final Rejection relates to the function of a
transmitter, not a user device, and thus does not teach a controller executing
a predetermined function based on the selected content responsive to user
input (App. Br. 12). The Examiner corrects the citation by pointing to
column 2, lines 39-46 of Hale (Ans. 22), which teaches the user device can
select content presented to the user based on user preferences (Hale 2:39-
46). We agree this portion of Hale teaches the limitation recited in claim 13,
and we note Appellant does not address this portion of Hale (see Reply Br.).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
With respect to claim 15, Appellant admits the portable device in Hale
can download information from a server via an internet connection, but
argues this feature of Hale only relates to the pre-provisioning aspects of the
device and does not teach a Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”) being
selected by a user (App. Br. 13). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 23), Appellant’s argument is based on
limitations that do not appear in the claim because claim 15 does not recite a
URL being selected by the user. Further, we note Hale teaches accessing a
web server to request new content based on received location codes (Hale
3:27-33), and thus this feature of Hale is not limited to pre-provisioning
content to the user device as Appellant contends. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Appeal 2011-007630
Application 11/468,428

6
Because Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 7, 13, and 15 are
not persuasive, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims.
Appellant presents no separate arguments for claims 2-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-
24, and rely on the same reasons for patentability stated for claims 1, 7, 13,
and 15 (App. Br. 11-14, 17). As a result, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of those claims.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-24 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

kme