Ex Parte Deng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12324885 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/324,885 11/27/2008 Yu-Hsiung Deng
27765 7590 08/01/2016
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
P.O. BOX506
MERRIFIELD, VA 22116
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.
MTKP0826USA 1442
EXAMINER
FLYNN, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-HSIUNG DENG and CHING-CHIER WANG
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, 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 the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, 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 Mediatek Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method of mapping channel
numbers to program numbers. The method includes receiving a virtual
channel table ("VCT") and a program association table ("PAT") and
comparing the two tables. See, generally, Abstract, Spec. i-fi-f l, 4, 5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of setting at least a mapping between a channel
number and a program number, comprising:
retrieving information from a virtual channel table (VCT)
and a program association table (PAT) transmitted via a
communication channel;
checking the consistency of program number data in the
retrieved information of the VCT and the PAT to generate a
checking result; and
determining a mapping between a specific channel number
and a specific program number according to the checking result,
wherein at least one of the specific channel number and the
specific program number is recorded in the retrieved information
of the VCT and the PAT.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Gupta US 2003/0197732 Al Oct. 23, 2003
Yun et al. US 2006/0279659 Al Dec. 14, 2006
Kurose et al. US 2007 /0006259 Al Jan.4,2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yun in view of Gupta. Final Act. 5-12.
2
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yun in view of Gupta and Kurose. Final Act. 12-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-20.
Appellants argue Yun teaches a system similar to that used in the prior
art and distinct from the method recited in claim 1. Br. 4--7, 9-10. More
specifically, Appellants argue Yun does not use a VCT or PAT, as recited in
claim 1, and therefore, cannot retrieve information from a VCT and PAT.
Br. 4--7. According to Appellants, "Yun only teaches to use DCM and VCM
inside the SVCT to determine the mapping of the channel number, and
because SVCT is a short-form VCT, then Yun only discloses to determine
mapping with the help of ONLY VCT, which is exactly like the
conventional art .... " Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner notes "Yun does not explicitly disclose VCT and PAT
tables" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Gupta taches
or suggests retrieving information from a VCT and PAT. Id. The Examiner
further finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use the VCT and PAT taught by Gupta with the system taught
in Yun "in order to provide a method and system for cross table analysis in a
digital broadcast environment so inconsistencies can be easily identified."
Final Act. 7 (citing Gupta i-f 37).
3
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. 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. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants' arguments focus on the teachings
of Yun alone and not the combined teaching of the references relied on by
the Examiner we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding Gupta teaches
"checking information that includes program number data from the VCT and
PAT and generating a result." Br. 7-9 (citation omitted). Appellants argue
Gupta only compares transport stream IDs ("TSID") and if the TSIDs do not
match, the TSID in the header of the VCT is highlighted. Br. 8. However,
"the program number is not being compared, it is just used to be a reference
and only helps to locate the tables to be compared." Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants further argue Gupta does not suggest "comparing a PAT and
VCT with inconsistent program numbers." Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Gupta teaches or suggests "checking the
consistency of program number data in the retrieved information of the VCT
and the PAT to generate a checking result [including] analyzing information
from the VCT and the PAT to determine if they match." Final Act. 6 (citing
Gupta Fig. 5, i-fi-f 18, 66, 67, 69, 70); see Ans. 16.
4
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
The Examiner concludes that claim 1 does not recite comparing
"program numbers;" instead, the claim recites "program number data" which
is broad enough to cover Gupta's teaching of TSID information, which
includes a program number. Ans. 16. Additionally, the Examiner concludes
the claim does not recite comparing inconsistent program number data;
instead, the claim recites "checking the consistency of program number data
in the retrieved information of the VCT and the PAT to generate a checking
result." Ans. 17.
During examination, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We agree with the
Examiner that the claim limitation program number data is broad enough to
encompass the TSID in Gupta containing program number data. See Gupta
Fig. 5. We further agree with the Examiner that Gupta teaches or suggests
"checking the consistency of program number data in the retrieved
information of the VCT and the PAT to generate a checking result," as
recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and, to the extent consistent with
our analysis, adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Gupta
and the scope of the claims. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 16-17.
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding a motivation
to combine the references. Br. 11-12. Specifically, Appellants argue "the
alleged rationale for combining the reference is merely an improper
conclusory statement that embodies clear and improper hindsight rationale."
Br. 11. Additionally, Appellants argue Yun does not teach or suggest any
5
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
problems or deficiencies that would lead one of skilled in the art to combine
it with Gupta. Br. 11-12. Appellants also argue because the combination of
references would be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, it is improper to
combine the two references. Br. 12
Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Although Appellants contend the Examiner failed to provide
articulated reasoning as to the proposed modification at issue, Appellants do
not persuasively address the reasoning provided by the Examiner (Final Act.
7; Ans. 19). Specifically, the Examiner finds Gupta teaches a system that
that allows any inconsistency between the metadata tables to be easily
detected and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
incorporated that feature into Yun to achieve improved results. Final Act. 7
(citing Gupta i-f 37); Ans. 19 (same). Because the Examiner's finding is
based on articulated reasoning and supporting by a rational underpinning, we
are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Yun does
not explicitly contain a specific motivation to combine it with Gupta to cure
a deficiency or problem. In KSR, the Supreme Court rejected the rigid
application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation ("TSM") test in favor
of a more expansive and flexible approach to the determination of
obviousness. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). As
the Supreme Court stated, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
6
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418. Thus, to the extent
Appellants' argument is premised on strictly applying the TSM test, it is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Instead, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill." Id. at 417. Accordingly, the
conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 418; see also id. at 416 ("The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."), at 417 ("If a
person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation,
§ 103 likely bars its patentability. "). Therefore, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred by not specifically finding a problem or deficiency in
Yun.
Nor are we persuaded that Appellants have established that the
proposed change would result in such a change in the principle of operation
of the prior art as to make the claimed invention nonobvious. If a proposed
modification would render the prior art invention being modified
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or
motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F .2d 900,
902 (Fed. Cir.1984).
7
Appeal2015-003529
Application 12/324,885
We do not find the combination relied on by the Examiner to be such
a change so that Yun will no longer work for its intended purpose.
Appellants state that "[s]uch an combination is illogical and unreasonable."
Br. 12. However, Appellants provide no evidence in support of their
argument. Id. "Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claim 12, which is argued on the same grounds, and
claims 2-9 and 13-20, which are not argued separately.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 11, Appellants merely
contend the claims are allowable because they depend from an allowable
claim. Br. 12. Because we determine that the rejection of claim 1 is not
erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these
claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
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