Appellant Sharp Labs wins at PTAB

Ex parte Van Beek

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 10, and we disagree with (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments.

The reply brief is referenced:

In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
interpretation of Wallace’s teachings improperly interpreted the claimed
hierarchy when reading claim 10 onto the prior art because, as recited in
claim 10, segments, segment groups, and a subset of segment groups called
“AlternativeGroups,” are characterized by “providing alternative views or
representations of a scene, with the same functionality but either different
durations with respect to each other, or different levels of detail with respect
to each other,” (Reply Br. 4).

Bottom line: The Examiner erred with respect to the rejection of claims 10-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejections are not sustained.

KSR is not cited.