Ex Parte Larsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2015

12109667 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2015)

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.
12/109,667 04/25/2008 Bo Hakan Larsson 9342-432/PS07 1688US1 3949
54414 7590 02/24/2015
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2015 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 BO HAKAN LARSSON, HENRIK SVEN
BENGTSSON, BJORN MARTIN GUNNAR LINDQUIST,
MANS FOLKE MARKUS ANDREASSON, PER EMIL
ASTRAND, and OLIVIER THIERRY NICOLAS MOLINER
____________________

Appeal 2013-000140
Application 12/109,667
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2013-000140
Application 12/109,667

2
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over a
combination of Ellis (US 2005/0028208 Al; Feb. 3, 2005), Kibble (US
2008/0231760 Al; Sept. 25, 2008), and Zigmond (US 7,064,675 B2; June
20, 2006). (See Ans. 4–11.) Appellants contend the Examiner has not
established the cited references teach or suggest “the controller being further
configured to initiate generation of the characterization data and receipt of
the identified program/movie at the mobile terminal in response to
determining that the mobile terminal has moved away from a source that is
playing the broadcast program/movie” as recited in claim 1 or similar
limitations recited in the other pending independent claims. (See App. Br.
6–10.) For the reasons set forth on pages 6–8 of Appellants’ Appeal Brief,
we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated the cited
art teaches or suggests these limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–20.

REVERSED
dw