Ex Parte Bird et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12467959 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/467,959 05/18/2009 Randall Bird 95603.893131 9032
23370 7590 03/02/2017
KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P
EXAMINER
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
DANG, KHANH
SUITE 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
A1EAJN 1 A, LrA 5U5UV 2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDALL BIRD, KEVIN COTE, RODNEY FARLEY, and
JOSEPH RENTON
Appeal 2015-001757
Application 12/467,959
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-001757
Application 12/467,959
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 23—33. Claims 1—22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s (i) anticipation rejection of claims 23—31
and 33, and (ii) obviousness rejection of claim 32.
Exemplary Claim
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 23, which is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is
reproduced below with emphases added:
23. A video content presentation system installed on­
board a passenger aircraft, comprising:
a. a server comprising a processor and memory;
b. a first dock permanently connected to a first
passenger seat;
c. a second dock permanently connected to a second
passenger seat, at least one of the first and second docks in data
communication with the server;
d. a first media player removably installed in the first
dock to present video content to a first passenger;
e. a second media player removably installed in the
second dock to present video content to a second passenger;
and
f. first persona data encoded locally in the first dock
to configure video content accessible to the first passenger via
the first media player based at least in part on a location of the
first dock within the aircraft.
2
Appeal 2015-001757
Application 12/467,959
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 23—31 and 33 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Margis (US 2006/0107295 Al; published May
18, 2006).1 Final Act. 2-6.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 32 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Margis and Minoo (US 2009/0091422 Al;
published Apr. 9, 2009 and filed Sept. 3, 2008).2 3Final Act. 7.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6—9)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1—5), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 23—31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) because Margis fails to disclose the “video content presentation
system installed on-board a passenger aircraft,” including the limitation that
video content be configured “accessible to the first passenger via the first
media player based at least in part on a location of the first dock within the
aircraft,” as recited in representative claim 23?
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 24—31, and Appellants rely
on the arguments as to claim 23 (see App. Br. 8). Appellants present
arguments as to claims 23 (App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2—5), and rely on those
arguments as to claims 24—31 which depend from claim 23 and contain the
same limitations argued as to claim 23. We select claim 23 as representative
of the group of claims consisting of claims 23—31. Accordingly, we decide
the appeal of the Examiner’s anticipation rejection on the basis of
representative independent claim 23, and dependent claim 33 separately
argued.
2 Claim 32 is not separately argued in the Appeal Brief (see generally App.
Br. 6—9). Therefore, no issue exists as to the obviousness rejection due to
Appellants’ failure to present separate arguments as to claim 32.
3
Appeal 2015-001757
Application 12/467,959
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) because Margis fails to disclose configuring “video content
accessible to the second passenger via the second media player based at least
in part on a location of the second dock within the aircraft,” as recited in
claim 33?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6—9) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 1—5) that the Examiner has erred.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 23—31 and 33
With regard to representative independent claim 23, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and ultimate determination (Final Act. 3—A\ Ans. 2—11)
that Margis discloses a “video content presentation system installed on­
board a passenger aircraft,” including the limitation that video content be
configured “accessible to the first passenger via the first media player based
at least in part on a location of the first dock within the aircraft,” as recited in
representative independent claim 23.
Because Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 2—5 (arguing that Margis’
paragraph 169 describing Figures 16A and 16B discloses a docking station
832 being located on the ground and not in an aircraft)) are drawn to an
embodiment of Margis not relied upon by the Examiner, these arguments are
unpersuasive. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that docking
station(s) 832 are located within the aircraft (Margis, Figs. 8B, 15A; see id.
1126,36,11,164).
4
Appeal 2015-001757
Application 12/467,959
With regard to claim 33 separately argued, we agree with the
Examiner (Final Act. 6) that Margis discloses configuring “video content
accessible to the second passenger via the second media player based at least
in part on a location of the second dock within the aircraft,” as recited in
claim 33.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not shown the Examiner’s
rejection of representative independent claim 23 or dependent claim 33 to be
in error, and we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 23—
31 and 33 in view of the disclosure of Margis.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 32
Based on Appellants’ failure in the Appeal Brief to address the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 32 over the
combination of Margis and Minoo, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Margis and Minoo
teaches or suggests the video content presentation system recited in claim
32.3 Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 32. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012) (each ground
3 Arguments not made in the parties opening briefs are ordinarily deemed
waived. See Aventis Pharma, S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1332—33
(Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469
F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its
opening brief... is waived.” (citation omitted)). An appeal “does not, unto
itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection.” Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations
omitted). Rather, an appealed rejection is reviewed for error identified by
the appellant. See also, In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .” (citing Frye, 94 USPQ2d
at 1075)).
5
Appeal 2015-001757
Application 12/467,959
of rejection contested by Appellants must be argued under a separate
heading that reasonably identifies the ground of rejection being contested;
arguments not presented in the briefs by Appellants will be refused
consideration).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not adequately demonstrated that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 23—31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Margis.
(2) The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Margis and Minoo is
summarily affirmed based on Appellants’ failure to present any argument as
to this rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s (i) anticipation rejection of claims 23—31
and 33 and (ii) obviousness rejection of claim 32.
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
6