Ex Parte Mitchell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2011

09493472 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
09/493,472 01/28/2000 James P. Mitchell 00CR063/KE 2281
7590 07/29/2011
Kyle Eppele
ROCKWELL COLLINS INC
ATTN: Kyle Eppele
400 Collins Road N.E.
Cedar Rapids, IA 52498
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES P. MITCHELL
____________________

Appeal 2010-003968
Application 09/493,472
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003968
Application 09/493,472

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A communication system for a mobile platform, the
mobile platform being stationary at a docking area, the
communication system comprising:

a server located in the docking area and comprising a
wireless docking area transceiver, a first satellite receiver, and a
first storage unit, the server being configured to store order wire
data received by the first satellite receiver, and to store video
data received by the first satellite receiver in the storage unit in
response to the order wire data;

a second satellite receiver located on the mobile
platform;

a wireless platform transceiver on the mobile platform
receiving the order wire data and the video data from the
wireless docking area transceiver while the mobile platform is
at the docking area; and

a second storage unit, the second storage unit being
located on the mobile platform, wherein the second storage unit
stores the video data for playback in the mobile platform and
the second storage unit storing the order wire data, the order
wire data controls a source of video for playback of a program
being either video data in the second storage unit or the second
satellite receiver, or both the second storage unit and the second
satellite receiver.
Appeal 2010-003968
Application 09/493,472

3
Appellant’s Contention
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Leuca (US 6,201,797 B1) and Podowski (US
5,524,272) because:
Leuca and Podowski, alone or in any proper
combination, fail to disclose at least seven features recited in
Claim 1 and related to the use of order wire data:
(1) order wire data that controls a source of video
playback of a program;
. . .
(3) the order wire data is received by a satellite receiver
in a docking area;
(4) a server located in the docking area and configured to
store the order wire data;
(5) a server located in the docking area and configured to
store video data received by the satellite receiver in the docking
area in response to the order wire data;
(6) a wireless platform transceiver on a mobile platform
receiving the order wire data from a wireless docking area
transceiver while the mobile platform is at the docking area;
and
(7) a storage unit located on the mobile platform that
stores the order wire data.
(App. Br. 11).
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Leuca and Podowski because “Leuca and Podowski,
alone or in any proper combination, fail to disclose at least five features
recited in Claim 12 and related to the use of order wire data.” (App. Br. 18).
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Appeal 2010-003968
Application 09/493,472

4
the combination of Leuca and Podowski because “Leuca and Podowski,
alone or in proper combination, fail to disclose, teach or suggest at least six
features recited in Claim 17 related to the use of order wire data.” (App. Br.
22).

Issue on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-30 as being
obvious based on Leuca and Podowski?

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents numerous arguments as to why the Examiner has
erred. (App. Br. 7-29). We agree with the Appellant’s above specifically
cited contentions. Therefore, Appellant has established that the Examiner
erred with respect to the rejection of claims 1-30 under § 103(a).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-30 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-30 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2010-003968
Application 09/493,472

5

tj