Ex Parte Abraham et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 25, 2016

13383390 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/383,390 01/10/2012
22879 7590 04/27/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin Abraham
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.
82919300 2630
EXAMINER
NATNAEL,PAULOS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN ABRAHAM, ROBERT CAMPBELL,
YANCY CHEN, and ROBERT CAMPESI
Appeal2014-008069
Application 13/383,390
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
("HPDC") as the real party in interest. HPDC is a wholly-owned affiliate of
Hewlett-Packard Company. The general or managing partner of HPDC is
HPQ Holdings, LLC. App. Br. 3
Appeal2014-008069
Application 13/383,390
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a mixer to transmit audiovisual
and computer data. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a computing system with memory to store audiovisual
data; and
a mixer connected to the computer system and including:
a first input to receive audiovisual data on a first
channel from a content provider;
a second input to receive computer data; and an
output to transmit the audiovisual data on the first channel
and transmit the computer data on at least one second
channel assigned by the mixer, wherein the mixer assigns
different channels to different files of the computer data.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Marc11yit:z .........................................•.. Y~ .. ~997/9~.?9~90 .. Al ........•... Qc;t'. .. ~.?, .. ~.997 ..... .
Aoki ......................................................•.. Y~ .. ~A~8,7~4.I3~ ...................•.. Jl1ly.3Q,.~Q13 .. .
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marcuvitz in view of Aoki. Final Act. 3-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
2
Appeal2014-008069
Application 13/383,390
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree
with Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-15.
The Examiner finds Marcuvitz teaches all of the limitations of claim
I-including the use of computer data---except for "wherein the mixer
assigns different channels to different files of the computer data." Final
Act. 3. The Examiner further finds assigning different channels to different
files would have been obvious because it was taught in the prior art. Final
Act. 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds the digital mixer assigns the
channel indicated by the layer data corresponding to the selected layer. Id.
Based on the modification of Marcuvitz in view of Aoki, the Examiner finds
the prior art teaches the wherein limitation. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue Marcuvitz does not teach assigning different
channels to different computer files. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue
Aoki is directed to audio signals, not computer files and, therefore, it cannot
process different computer files or assign different computer files to
different channels. App. Br. 9-10.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Marcuvitz
teaches using computer data and inputting it into a mixer (Final Act. 3--4)
3
Appeal2014-008069
Application 13/383,390
while Aoki teaches assigning different files to different channels (Final Act.
4 ). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the combination of the
teaching of the two references teaches the disputed claim limitation. Final
Act. 4. Appellants' arguments, which focus on the individual references as
opposed to the combined teaching of the references, do not persuade us the
Examiner erred. It is irrelevant whether Aoki teaches computer data/files
because the Examiner did not rely on the reference for that teaching in the
Final Action. 2 It is similarly irrelevant that Marcuvitz does not teach
assigning different computer files to different channels because the
Examiner did not rely on the reference for that teaching. Instead, we agree
with, and adopt the Examiner's finding in the Final Action (pages 3--4)
regarding the combined teaching of the references as our own.
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Aoki is
limited to audio data and does not apply to audiovisual data as required by
claim 1. As discussed above, the Examiner's findings are based on the
broad teaching in Aoki on assigning different channels. Therefore, it does
not matter that the reference uses only audio data and not audiovisual data.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 7 and 13, which are argued on the same grounds,
and dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14, and 15, which are not argued
separately.
2 We have considered Appellants' argument in the Reply Brief regarding
whether Aoki teaches mixing computer data. See Reply Br. 4--5. Because
we do not rely on the Examiner's findings from the Answer, we do not reach
the respective Appellants' argument directed to those findings.
4
Appeal2014-008069
Application 13/383,390
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5