Ex Parte Sangberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 7, 2015

12037392 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 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.
12/037,392 02/26/2008 Troed Nils Rickard Sangberg 2002-822 / PU07 0353US2 3770
54472 7590 05/08/2015
COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2015 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 TROED NILS RICKARD SANGBERG, PATRIK SEGER, and
LELAND SCOTT BLOEBAUM
_____________

Appeal 2012-012208
Application 12/037,392
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for managing the distribution of
a data object corresponding to a first user of a first device to a second
communication device. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for managing the distribution of data objects in
a communication network, comprising:
storing a plurality of data objects corresponding to a first user
of a first communication device;
Appeal 2012-012208
Application 12/037,392

2
receiving state information for the first communication device;
detecting a trigger event related to communication between the
first communication device and a second communication device;
selecting one of the data objects based on the detected trigger
event and the state information; and
sending the selected data object to the second communication
device.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 12, 14, 16
through 18, and 20 anticipated by Minborg (US 2005/0271041 A1). Final
Office Action 7–12.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Minborg and of Caspi (US 7,848,760 B2).
Final Office Action 12–13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Minborg and of Miluzzo (US 2010/0299615 A1). Final
Office Action 13–14.

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages
2 through 5 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error. These arguments
present us with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding that Minborg teaches receiving
state information from a communication device?

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 23, 2012;
the Reply Brief filed June 9, 2012, the Final Office Action mailed October
18, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on June 5, 2012.
Appeal 2012-012208
Application 12/037,392

3
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Minborg receiving state
information separate from trigger information?

Appellants’ arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) do not present us with additional issues.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through
20. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 3 through 7 of the Answer. We have reviewed the
portions of Appellants’ Specification and the portions of Minborg relied
upon by the Examiner to support the claim interpretation and finding that
Minborg teaches the disputed claim limitations. We concur with the
Examiner’s claim interpretation and findings and adopt them as our own.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 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
gvw