Picco, Martin R. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

14935791 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2020)

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.
14/935,791 11/09/2015 Martin R. Picco HRMC.P928CON 4716
102107 7590 02/27/2020
Brokaw Patent Law, PC
101 Church Street, Suite 50
Los Gatos, CA 95030
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
amaloney@brokawpatentlaw.com
chris@brokawpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARTIN R. PICCO, NOAM KOREN,
RAZ NITZAN, GUO FENG HUANG, and ILAN BEN-ZEEV
____________________

Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and BETH Z.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing (“Request”) under 37 C.F.R. §
47.52(a)(1) (2013) of our Decision on Appeal mailed October 25, 2019
(“Decision”). The Decision:
affirmed the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 32–40 and 42–
50 under 35 U.S.C. 102; and
affirmed the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 41 and 51 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
We reconsider our decision in light of Appellant’s Request for
Rehearing.
Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

2
Appellant contends we misapprehended or overlooked certain points
when we affirmed the Examiner’s rejections. Request 2–11. In particular,
Appellant points out, and we agree, that the 200 OK message of Einarsson,
and in particular, the SDP file discussed in paragraph 41 of Einarsson, is not
an executable file. Request 8. Appellant made this argument in the Appeal
Brief at pages 19–20. Thus, we agree that the 200 OK message does not
disclose “a script executable by the client device, the script operable to
transmit codes toward the head-end equipment in response to and indicative
of user selection among navigational choices,” as recited in claim 32.
For the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 32, as well as independent claim
42, which contains the same limitation at issue. For the same reasons, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 33–41 and 43–51,
which depend from either claim 32 or 42.

CONCLUSION
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s Request.
We now REVERSE the rejections of claims 32–51.
In summary:
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Denied Granted
32–40, 42–50 102 Einarsson 32–40, 42–50
41, 51 103 Einarsson 41, 51
Overall
Outcome 32–51

Appeal 2019-001030
Application 14/935,791

3
Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
32–40, 42–50 102 Einarsson 32–40, 42–50
41, 51 103 Einarsson 41, 51
Overall
Outcome 32–51

DECISION
Appellant’s request for rehearing is granted.

GRANTED