Ex Parte Richardson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

13018935 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/018,935 02/01/2011
84577 7590 06/21/2016
Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue
Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jon Richardson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P201 l -Ol -44 9459
EXAMINER
HENSON, MISCHITA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
IPDEPT@echostar.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JON RICHARDSON
Appeal2014-005551
Application 13/018,935 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is EchoStar
Technologies L.L.C. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005551
Application 13/018,935
The Examiner maintains2, and Appellant appeals, the rejection of
claims 1-8, 11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Organ
(US 2002/0177968 Al published Nov. 28, 2002); and claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Organ (US 4,762,877 issued Aug. 9, 1988)
in view of Dasnurkar (US 2011/0137604 Al published June 9, 2011).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellant's position that the Examiner has not established that Organ
discloses Devices Under Test ("DUTs") communicatively interconnected as
required by independent claims 1 and 13 or computer-readable storage
medium that comprises communicating control instructions configured to
communicatively couple the source DUT and the sink DUT as required by
independent claims 17. (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 4--16).
Accordingly, we reverse the appealed prior art rejections.
REVERSED
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. (Ans. 2)
2