Ex Parte Dunko

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2013

11258472 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2013)

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.
11/258,472 10/25/2005 Gregory A. Dunko 2002-200/ PU05 0522US 2912
54472 7590 10/17/2013
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
10/17/2013 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 2011-012400
Application 11/258,472
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012400
Application 11/258,472

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-19, and 21-26 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a wireless communication
method and device for tailoring electronic content retrieval to the
capabilities of the wireless communication device (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of tailoring electronic content retrieval by a
wireless communication device comprising:

maintaining device capability information in the wireless
communication device; and

filtering one or more electronic feeds received by the
wireless communication device by receiving content
information at the wireless communication device from or for
the one or more electronic feeds, the content information
identifying available electronic content and corresponding
characteristics, and evaluating the content characteristics at the
wireless communication device with respect to the device
capability information to identify electronic content at the
wireless communication device having content characteristics
commensurate with the device capability information.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 22,
and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bell (U.S.
Pat. Appl’n. Publ’n. 2007/0150592 A1, published June 28, 2007) and
Appeal 2011-012400
Application 11/258,472

3
Othmer (U.S. Pat. Appl’n. Publ’n. 2005/0039135 A1, published Feb. 17,
2005) (Ans. 4-8).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Bell, Othmer, and Trossen (U.S. Pat. Appl’n.
Publ’n. 2005/0198525 A1, published September 8, 2005) (Ans. 8-9).
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Bell, Othmer, and Nicholas (U.S. Pat. Appl’n.
Publ’n. 2008/0126476 A1, published May 29, 2008) (Ans. 9-10).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Bell, in view of Othmer, discloses the claimed
limitation “filtering one or more electronic feeds received by the wireless
communication device” (Ans. 5, 12)
Appellant contends, and we agree, Bell, alone or in combination with
Othmer, does not teach or suggest this claimed limitation. That is, nowhere
in Bell or Othmer has the Examiner pointed to the wireless communication
device filtering the received electronic feeds. Rather, Bell and Othmer both
disclose the wireless communication devices provide parameters to the
service provider indicating the type and format of media content to be
delivered from the service provider to the wireless communication device.
Therefore, in Bell and Othmer, all the presentation and format options are
input to the service provider by the wireless communication device for
delivering desired media content to the wireless portable device in the proper
format. (Br. 5). This is not the same as filtering the input from the service
provider at the wireless communication device. In fact, neither Bell nor
Othmer disclose any type of filtering at the wireless device; the references
Appeal 2011-012400
Application 11/258,472

4
receive whatever content is delivered from the service provider as indicated
by the wireless communication device. We agree with Appellant if “wrong
media content or media content of an improper format” is delivered to the
wireless communication device, it will receive undesirable or unusable
content (Br. 5).
Thus, Bell, alone or in combination with Othmer, does not teach or
suggest filtering feeds received by the wireless communication device as
recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 25. For the above reasons, we are
persuaded of Examiner error. Due to their dependency on claims 1, 13, and
25, claims 2-7, 9-12, 14-19, 21-24, and 26 are also not obvious over the
collective teachings of the cited references.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19, and 21-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh