Ex Parte CHOI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2018

12703908 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/703,908
33942 7590
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian A venue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
02/11/2010 Han Shi! CHOI
06/14/2018
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.
5004-1-229 5089
EXAMINER
EUSTAQUIO, CAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2018 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 HAN SHIL CHOI 1
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DENISE M. POTHIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 9--13, and 17-20, which are all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 9-13, and 17-20.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
INVENTION
The invention is a portable device that has an alarm function and a
projection module to project information to the user. Spec. 3: 14--17. When
a preset alarm time arrives, the projection module outputs information in the
form of video content through the projector module. Spec. 4:2-6. The
portable device also contains a broadcast receiving module, so that when a
preset alarm time arrives the user can choose to have broadcast content
outputted by the projector module. Spec. 6: 1-15 and 10:25-11 :9.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention, and reads as follows:
1. A method for providing an alarm function in a
portable terminal comprising a projector module, the method
compnsmg:
checking a preset alarm function when a preset alarm time
arrives;
activating the projector module if the checked preset alarm
function is set to output a video content or a broadcast content;
outputting the video content through the projector module
when the checked alarm function is set to output the video
content; and
when the checked preset alarm function is set to output the
broadcast content, receiving the broadcast content through a
broadcast receiving module and outputting the broadcast content
through the projector module.
2
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 9--13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over Haupt et al. (US 2003/0206494 Al; Nov. 6,
2003) ("Haupt") in view of Gorden (US 2003/0198137 Al; Oct. 23, 2003)
("Gorden"). Non-Final Act. 3-8.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant contends (Br. 6-11) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1--4, 9-13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). Specifically,
Appellant's arguments on pages 6 through 11 of the Appeal Brief assert that
independent claim 1 was rejected in error and present us with the following
issues: (1) the combination of Haupt in view of Gorden does not teach or
suggest receiving a video broadcast that is produced at the time of the alarm;
(2) the combination of the two references would destroy the intended
purpose of Haupt; (3) neither reference discloses a broadcast receiving
module; ( 4) Gorden is nonanalogous art, and ( 5) Haupt does not teach
checking a preset alarm function when the preset alarm time arrives.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and arguments (Non-
Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 3-9) in light of Appellant's arguments (Br. 6-11) that
the Examiner has erred. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error.
We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). With
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed
October 22, 2014, Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.") mailed April
28, 2014, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 19, 2014.
3
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
regard to representative claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer.
Ans. 3-9. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
First issue.
Appellant's arguments, directed to the first issue, assert that Gorden
does not disclose receiving a video broadcast that is produced at the time of
the alarm. Br. 9. Instead, Appellant argues that Gorden at paragraph [0045]
merely states "receiving broadcast audio and/or image data over a network"
as a general capability and not in connection to a preset alarm function. See
id. ( emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues that "if images from a
DVD in Gorden were to be projected at the time of the alarm, no broadcast
content images would be projected when the alarm goes off, since Gorden
does not in fact teach to display broadcast video as an alarm." See id.
The Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments stating Gorden
teaches an alarm clock that "'allows a user to receive a predetermined audio
and/or image signal ... at a predetermined time"' and a modem that allows
the user to connect to the Internet to receive a broadcast audio and/or image
data over a telephone network. Ans. 4--5 (citing Gorden ,r,r 29, 31-32)
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that a person of skill would
determine, from the referenced paragraphs in Gorden, that the predetermined
audio and/or image is generated from the Internet in the form of broadcast
audio and/or images. Ans. 4--5.
Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner ( Ans. 4--5)
that Gorden's disclosure teaches receiving a video broadcast that is produced
at the time of the alarm. This is supported by paragraph [0029] of Gorden
4
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
which states the alarm clock can "place a predetermined telephone call" at
the predetermined alarm time. Specifically, the preset alarm triggers an auto
dialer which initiates a video call to a predetermined telephone number
through the alarm clock using a camera, wherein the broadcast would be the
audio and video from the telephone call ( e.g., image captured remotely from
a camera). Gorden ,r 72. In this light, Appellant's arguments (Br. 9) that
Gorden fails to disclose receiving a video broadcast that is produced at the
time of the alarm as recited in representative claim 1 are not persuasive.
Second issue.
Appellant's arguments, directed to the second issue, assert that the
combination of Haupt in view of Gorden would render Haupt unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. Specifically, Appellant contends Haupt conveys
information on physical parameters, such as time, temperature, humidity,
which are measured on site and presented to the user. Br. 10. Appellant
argues that the projector of Haupt, which displays physical parameters to the
user, is incompatible with the LCD display of Gorden, which is used to
display a DVD. See id. (citing Gorden ,r 59).
Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner's (Ans. 5-
6) conclusion that the combination would not render Haupt unsatisfactory.
The Examiner points to paragraph [0001] of Haupt to show that the
invention is to a projection alarm clock that "project[ s] various values, data
or images representing this data, .. . for example in particular the time, date,
alarm time, inside temperature, outside temperature, [and] humidity"
( emphasis added). The use of the clause "for example" in the preceding
quotation demonstrates that the recitation of local weather data is merely one
5
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
sample embodiment of the invention's intended use. Therefore, the
displaying of extra or other content usingHaupt's system would not be
precluded. Appellant's argument, on page 10 of the Brief, that Haupt's
teaching which uses a projector, is incompatible with Gorden, which uses an
LCD display, is not persuasive considering the combination merely
substitutes one manner of displaying data with another equivalent manner.
Non-Final Act. 4, 9.
Third issue.
Appellant's arguments, directed to the third issue, assert that neither
Haupt nor Gorden teaches the claimed broadcast receiving module as recited
in claim 1. Br. 10-11. Appellant argues that Gorden merely describes a
modem that enables the clock to connect to the Internet to receive "broadcast
audio and/or 2) image data over a telephone network," which differs from
the module recited in claim 1 that "receives broadcast content images." See
id. at 10. For support of these contentions Appellant points to Gorden's
recitation of a telephone dialer that dials a weather station at the time of the
alarm, which purportedly would not constitute an image-based broadcast as
recited in the claim. See id. at 10-11.
Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7)
that the modem of Gorden which enables the clock to connect to Internet to
receive broadcast audio and/or images meets the "receiving the broadcast
content" limitation through the broadcast receiving module in the claim.
Ans. 7 (citing Gorden ,r 32). The Examiner explains that broadcast audio
and/or images can be interpreted as "two distinctive alternatives: 'broadcast
audio and image data' and 'broadcast audio or image data,"' the first
6
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
alternative clearly showing that the broadcast content is both audio and
image data from the modem. See id.
Fourth issue.
Appellant's arguments, directed to the fourth issue, assert that Haupt
and Gorden are nonanalogous art. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant argues
that Gorden's disclosure does not relate to projecting images and only
utilizes an LCD display. See id. ( citing Gorden ,r 31 ). "The analogous-art
test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the
applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for
rejection." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). In this case, the field of the
Appellant's endeavor is an alarm clock that displays data to a user at a preset
time. The Examiner is correct in that both Haupt and Gorden solve the
problem of displaying data using known variants of display devices, e.g.,
projection or LCD display, to inform a user when a predetermined time has
arrive (i.e., alarm clocks with displays). Ans. 8-9. Additionally, we note
Haupt and Gorden are in the same field as Appellant's endeavor-alarm
clocks that display or project data ( e.g., audio and/or video) at preset times.
See Haupt, Abstract and Gorden, Abstract.
Fifth issue.
Appellant's arguments, directed to the fifth issue, assert that Haupt
does not disclose checking a preset alarm function when the preset alarm
time arrives. Br. 11. Appellant points to paragraphs [0007] through [0008]
7
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
of Haupt, which disclose components of the projection alarm clock (i.e., the
control unit), and contends Haupt's device does not disclose a clock
selecting between a number of different possible alarm outputs when the
alarm time arrives. See id. The Examiner (Ans. 8) in tum argues that claim
1 does not recite language to the effect of the clock selecting between
varying outputs when the alarm time arrives. Specifically, Examiner points
to Appellant's Specification at page 3 line 24 to page 4 line 6, which merely
states "checking setting information regarding an alarm function that has
been set when a preset alarm time arrives." Spec. 3:25--4:2 (emphases
omitted). Given the disclosure, the Examiner determines one skilled in the
art would have reasonably interpreted the recited "checking a preset alarm
function when a preset alarm time arrives" limitation to include the function
any alarm clock performs to enable the alarm function upon arrival of a
preset time. Ans. 8. 3 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is not
limited to selecting between a number of different possible alarm outputs
when the alarm time arrives. As such Appellant's argument has not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Haupt and Gorden teaches the disputed limitation as recited in claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1. Since no arguments were separately presented for
3 We note that the Examiner's rejection relies upon Haupt to teach the
"checking a preset alarm" limitation of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3. We
concur, and additionally note that Gorden teaches the user may select the
time and designate the particular alarm (see, e.g., ,r 44 which teaches the
user can select among several alarm types and one of which involves
obtaining information such as a weather report at the time the alarm time).
8
Appeal2018-000865
Application 12/703,908
claims 2--4, 9--13, and 17-20 (see Br. 6-11), their rejection is sustained for
the same reasons as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1--4, 9--13, and 17-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Haupt in view of Gorden.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 9--13, and 17-20 are
affirmed.
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
9