Ex Parte Beauchamp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

11325485 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
2655.100NP 9273
EXAMINER
MEI, XU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/325,485 01/05/2006
83182 7590 03/30/2017
J. ANDREW MCKINNEY & ASSOC., LLC
PO Box 1290
Millersville, MD 21108
Todd Beauchamp
03/30/2017 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 TODD BEAUCHAMP
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims
1—30, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act 1; Claims App’x. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, the disclosed invention relates to a home
entertainment system with a plurality of modules that are integrated into a
single enclosure. Spec. 112. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated home entertainment system comprising:
a plurality of entertainment modules comprising at least a
media source, an amplifier, a plurality of speakers connected to
said amplifier and a decoder for generating decoded sound
signals for said amplifier;
at least one power supply for a plurality of said modules;
and a modular base housing said modules;
wherein said modular base comprises a first enclosure
projecting upwardly from and supported by a base plate;
wherein said modular base supports at least a front wall
defining a plurality of apertures which receive said plurality of
speakers connected to said amplifier;
wherein said plurality of entertainment modules are
integrated into and housed in said first enclosure, and wherein
said first enclosure includes an exterior surface or panel
configured to provide controls, inputs and displays for a plurality
of said entertainment modules.
REFERENCES
Miller Des. 320,126 Sept. 24, 1991
Rostoker US 5,773,886 June 30, 1998
Oplinger US 2002/0146139 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
Gersabeck US 6,529,608 B2 Mar. 4, 2003
Long US 6,708,797 B2 Mar. 23, 2004
Tamayama US 7,146,018 B2 Dec. 5, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5 and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Oplinger, Tamayama, and Long. Final
Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
Claims 6—8 and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Oplinger, Tamayama, Long, and
Miller. Final Act. 6.
Claims 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Oplinger, Tamayama, Long, and
Rostoker. Final Act. 9.
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Oplinger, Tamayama, Long, Rostoker,
and Gersabeck. Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5 and 9—20
Appellant presents seven arguments for reversing the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. As set forth below, we are not persuaded by these
arguments.
First, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Oplinger teaches
or suggests a “plurality of entertainment modules . . . integrated into and
housed in said first enclosure.” Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues
Oplinger provides only shelf space in its enclosure for entertainment
modules, such as audio-video components, and the user must select, provide,
and connect those audio-video components. Id.
In response, the Examiner construes the term “integrated” as
“combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide an
interrelated whole; to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.”
Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted). This construction is based on dictionary
definitions appearing in dictionary.com, the definitions of which in turn are
3
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
based on definitions in the Random House Dictionary (2017).
www.dictionary.com/browse/integrated (last accessed February 17, 2017).
Using this construction, the Examiner explains how Oplinger teaches
integrating a plurality of entertainment modules into its enclosure. Ans. 12.
The Examiner finds that Oplinger integrates its entertainment modules into
its enclosure through, for example, connections on its rear panel. Id., citing
Oplinger Abstract; Figs. 2, 3, and 5; Tflf 32, 34, and 46. Appellant identifies
no reversible error in the Examiner’s construction or finding. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Oplinger does not teach
or suggest the recited plurality of entertainment modules.
Second, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Oplinger
discloses “a modular base.” Br. 6. We are not persuaded by this argument
because the Examiner sets forth how Oplinger discloses such a base, and
Appellant identifies no reversible error in the explanation provided by the
Examiner. Ans. 13.
Third, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Oplinger
discloses the recited base plate. Br. 6—7. Appellant notes in the Final Action
the Examiner identifies anti-tip bracket element 56 in Oplinger Figure 2 as
the recited base plate. Id., see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner
acknowledges that identification was mistaken and corrected it in the May 1,
2015 Office Action (at 3), which was mailed before the Appeal Brief. Ans.
13. In that Office Action and the Answer, the Examiner finds that support
base 14, which appears near element 56 in Oplinger Figure 2, is the recited
base plate. May 1, 2015 Office Action 3; Ans. 13—14. Appellant identifies
no reversible error in that finding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Oplinger discloses the recited base plate.
4
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
Fourth, Appellant makes various assertions regarding Tamayama, but
provides no persuasive arguments or evidence to support those assertions.
Br. 8—10. Accordingly, we do not find those assertions persuasive.
Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
Fifth, Appellant argues the Examiner’s combination of references
would require that an amplifier made by another company (presumably
meaning a company other than the assignees of the cited references) be
utilized. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument because claim 1
does not recite the use of any particular company’s or companies’
equipment.
Sixth, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in combining Long’s
display disclosure with the other cited references because Long’s display is
designed to be used for non-consumer equipment, such as ATMs or gas
pumps. Br. 8—10. Appellant asserts that incorporating an ATM or gas pump
display into Oplinger’s cabinet would not yield the claimed invention. Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument because it concerns a bodily
combination of the references, rather than a combination of their teachings.
In reMouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Seventh, Appellant argues that hindsight would be required to obtain
the claimed invention because the combination would require one of
ordinary skill in the art to purchase devices, connect the devices, and have
remote controls learn the devices. Br. 8—10. We are not persuaded by this
argument because Appellant presents no reason why such tasks would be
beyond the routine abilities of one ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2—5 and
9-20, not separately argued. Br. 10.
5
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
Claims 6—8 and 27—30
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 6—8 and 27—30 as
for claims 1—5 and 9—20. In addition, Appellant argues the Examiner erred
in relying on Miller in combination with the other cited references to reject
claims 6—8 and 27—30. Br. 12—15. The Examiner relies on Miller Figure 1
as disclosing “a TV stand wherein an upper enclosure (‘center channel
enclosure’) overhangs a first enclosure.” Final Act. 6. Appellant argues the
upper enclosure in Figure 1 of Miller has hinged, opposing glass doors,
which suggest the enclosure is meant to encompass equipment, such as a
cable box, rather than speakers. Br. 13. Appellant further argues that
combining Miller’s upper enclosure with the other cited art would simply
interject an upper enclosure with glass doors for providing shelf space into
Oplinger’s cabinet. Id. at 14. We are also not persuaded by this argument
because it also directed to a bodily combination of references, for the
Examiner does not propose combining Miller’s upper enclosure with
Oplinger’s cabinet. Instead, the Examiner combines Miller’s teachings of
having an upper enclosure that overhangs with Oplinger’s center channel
enclosure to increase the size of that enclosure in Oplinger. Final Act. 6—7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 and of claims 7, 8
and 27—30, not separately argued. Br. 15.
Claims 21—26
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 21—26 as for
claim 1. In addition, Appellant asserts the Examiner erred in finding that
the unlabeled audio sources of Figure 2 of Oplinger are embodied by circuit
boards within the shown outer housings. Br. 16. We are not persuaded by
this assertion because Appellant presents no persuasive argument or
evidence explaining why such audio sources would not have circuit boards.
6
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
Appellant merely indicates that Appellant does not perceive it that way, but
that is not sufficient to support an argument on appeal. Gemtron Corp, 572
F.3d at 1380. Further, Oplinger discloses the use of circuit boards in
electronic equipment. Oplinger 145.
Appellant also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
combined the teachings of Gersabeck with the other cited references because
Gersabeck is directed to a speech recognition system and is not related to a
home entertainment system. Br. 21. We are not persuaded by this argument,
or the related argument concerning the need to set forth modifications to
Gersabeck for the combination, because these arguments are directed to a
bodily combination of the references, rather than a combination of their
teachings.
Appellant also asserts without evidence or supporting arguments that
certain additional limitations of claims 21—26 are lacking from the
references. Br. 15—22. Such assertions, however, are not supported by
persuasive arguments or evidence and, therefore, are not persuasive.
37 C.F.R. §41.37(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 21—26.
In addition, for all standing rejections, we adopt the findings and
rationales set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—30.
7
Appeal 2016-003945
Application 11/325,485
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
8