Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201412757755 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MORRIS LEE, DANIEL NELSON, and WESTON HEADLEY ____________ Appeal 2012-009228 Application 12/757,755 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7–12, 14, 18–22, 24, and 28–33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Kemink (US 6,563,430 B1; May 13, 2003) teaches “disregarding Appeal 2012-009228 Application 12/757,755 2 the media signal when the media delivery device is not located at the location of the portable metering device,” as recited in independent claim 1.1 The Examiner cites Kemink’s columns 4 and 10 for that claim limitation. See Ans. 11. But the Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how the cited portions of Kemink teach “disregarding the media signal when the media delivery device is not located at the location of the portable metering device,” as required by claim 1. In particular, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that “receiving device’s status information omit options for controlling the devices located in other room” constitutes adequate disclosure of the disputed claim limitation (Ans. 11). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over the combination of Kemink and Kaneko (US 2003/0136827 A1; Jul. 24, 2003), and claims 2, 4, 7–12, 14, 18–22, 24, and 28–33 for similar reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7–12, 14, 18–22, 24, and 28–33 is reversed. REVERSED msc 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to address the additional arguments. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation