Ex Parte Cruz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13276386 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/276,386 10/19/2011
25537 7590 06/29/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony Cruz
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.
20060312Cl 6382
EXAMINER
MENGESHA, MULUGETA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY CRUZ and LASZLO ERDEL Y JR.
Appeal2015-003340
Application 13/276,386
Technology Center 2400
Before BETH Z. SHAW, SHARON PENICK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are the only claims currently pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is for a media device such as a wireless set top box.
See Spec. i-f 3.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A media device comprising:
a media content receiver to receive, from a content
provider, media content comprising a plurality of media
channels;
Appeal2015-003340
Application 13/276,386
a transceiver configured to bi-directionally communicate
with at least one remote control;
a plurality of tuners configured to concurrently tune to
different media channels, of the plurality of media channels,
based on commands received from the at least one remote
control; and
a media transmission system comprising a plurality of
antenna-transmitter pairings configured to selectively transmit
media content associated with one or more select media
channels, of the different media channels, to one or more
network devices via user-selected frequency ranges respectively
allotted for each of the antenna-transmitter pairings.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act.
3.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 4--7, 9, 11-15 and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Russ (US 2004/0068754 Al; Apr.
8, 2004), Mitchell (US 2002/0162120 Al; Oct. 31, 2002), and Malkemes et
al. (US 2002/0061024 Al; May 23, 2002). Final Act. 4--11.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Russ, Mitchell, Malkemes, and Dolph (US
2007/0286582 Al; Dec. 13, 2007). Final Act. 11-12.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Russ, Mitchell, Malkemes, and Zahn (US 2006/0028582
Al; Feb. 9, 2006). Final Act. 12-13.
2
Appeal2015-003340
Application 13/276,386
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections are in error. Br. 8-22.
The dispositive issues presented by these arguments are:
Did the Examiner err in finding claims 1-20 are not enabled?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Russ, Mitchell,
and Malkemes teaches or suggests:
a media transmission system comprising a plurality of antenna-
transmitter pairings configured to selectively transmit media content
associated with one or more select media channels, of the different
media channels, to one or more network devices via user-selected
frequency ranges respectively allotted for each of the antenna-
transmitter pairings,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief for the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See Ans.13-17, Final Act. 4-13.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Appellants argue that the Specification enables the claimed "antenna-
transmitter pairings" because it states that "[ t ]he first and second transmitters
281 and 282 are RF transmitters and are operatively coupled to first and
second RF antennas 226 and 227, respectively." Br. 9 (quoting Spec. i-f 24).
Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would readily understand this
3
Appeal2015-003340
Application 13/276,386
disclosure to mean that first transmitter 281 is operatively paired with first
RF antenna 226, and second transmitter 282 is operatively paired with
second RF antenna 227. Id. Thus, Appellants argue, one skilled in the art
could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled
with information known in the art, without undue experimentation, and
therefore the claims should not be rejected for lack of enablement. Id. at 10.
We agree with Appellants that the Specification contains sufficient
disclosure that one skilled in the art could make or use the claimed "antenna-
transmitter pairings" from the disclosure in the patent coupled with
information known in the art, without undue experimentation. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Rejection of Claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner maps the recited "antenna-transmitter pairings" to
Malkemes' disclosure of transceiver 216. Ans. 13-14 (citing Malkemes
Figs. 1 and 2, i-fi-f 17-30, 34); Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that Malkemes
does not teach a plurality of antenna-transmitter pairings, as recited in claim
1. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Malkemes' description of transceiver 216, which
amplifies a modulated signal and couples the signal to a pair of antennas
106, teaches or suggests the claimed plurality of antenna-transmitter
pairings. Ans. 14; Malkemes Figs. 1-2. We note this mapping of the
claimed "antenna-transmitter pairings" to Malkemes is consistent with
Appellants' enablement arguments and with the antenna-transmitter
4
Appeal2015-003340
Application 13/276,386
couplings as described in Appellants' Specification. See Br. 9 (citing Spec.
i-f 24); see also Spec. Fig. 2.
Appellants also argue that Malkemes fails to teach "user selected
frequency ranges" as recited in claim 1. See Br. 12-13. However, the
Examiner explains that Malkemes describes a user device (gateway device)
channelized into fifty 6 MHz bands for each appliance (e.g., television or
PC), and based on a channel selection by the user, the user device selectively
modulates the channel selected by the user, and then transmits modulated
signals to one or more receivers through one or more antennas. Ans. 14
(citing Malkemes i-fi-120-23, Tables 1and2). We agree with the Examiner
that the cited description in Malkemes teaches the claimed "user selected
frequency ranges," as recited in claim 1. Appellants provide no persuasive
evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary, and we accordingly
find no reversible error.
As to Appellants' arguments regarding combinability (Br. 14), we are
unpersuaded because mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements
that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what
seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not
the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness."); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to
the contrary, the Examiner's findings are reasonable, and we find no
reversible error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-003340
Application 13/276,386
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability above (see Br. 12-21) for the
remaining pending claims, they fall for the same reasons as claim 1. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is 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
6