Ex Parte Deuel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

11991549 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111991,549 01115/2009 Eric S Deuel
22428 7590 09/21/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
108918-0401 7991
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/2112016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC S. DEUEL, PETER W. MOKRIS, STEVE SCHULTZ,
LANCE E. TINDER, DOUGLAS W. KLAMER, LOREN D.
VREDEVOOGD, and DAVID STRAIGHT
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 26, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
Il'.JVENTI ON
The invention is directed to a vehicle entertainment system where
there are displays in the rear of the vehicle and the front of the vehicle. The
display in the front of the vehicle displays still video or reduced frame video
of the in information displayed on the display in the rear of the vehicle. See
Abstract of Appellants' Specification.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A vehicle entertainment system, comprising:
a media player configured to read data from a medium,
the data comprising full motion video signals;
a first display configured to display video to a rear
section of the vehicle;
a first control circuit coupled to the media player
comprising a decoder module configured to decode data
received from the media player, to transmit the full motion
video signals to the first display, and to transmit restricted
frame rate video signals based on the full motion video signals;
a second display configured to display video to a front
section of the vehicle; and
a second control circuit coupled to the second display and
configured to receive the restricted frame rate video signals
from the first control circuit, wherein the second control circuit
is configured to provide the restricted frame rate video signals
to the second display such that full motion video is shown on
the first display to the rear section of the vehicle and only
restricted frame rate video, including the restricted frame rate
video from the first control circuit, is shown on the second
display to the front section of the vehicle; and
wherein the second control circuit prevents the second
display from playing any full motion video.
2
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1through4, 6 through 10, 13 through
21, and 24 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Tranchina (US 2005/0005298 Al; Jan. 6, 2005) and Karaoguz (US
2005/0235312 Al;Oct. 20, 2005). Final Act. 5-11. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Tranchina, Karaoguz and Nelson (US
2005/057322 A2; June 23, 2005). Final Act. 12-14.
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 7 through 13 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 3 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error. These arguments present us with the
following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in considering Karaoguz as analogous art?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz teaches the second
control circuit to receive a restricted frame rate video and that it
prevents the second display from playing any full motion video?
3) Did the Examiner err in concluding the skilled artisan would
combine the teachings of Tranchina and Karaoguz?
Appellants' arguments with respect to independent claims 14 and 24,
present us with the same three issues as presented with respect to claim 1.
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 13,
2012, Reply Brief dated March 29, 2013, Final Office Action mailed March
16, 2012, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on January 29, 2013.
3
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
With respect to claim 8, Appellants' arguments on pages 14 and 15 of
the Appeal Brief and pages 6 and 7 of the Reply Brief present us with the
additional issue:
4) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tranchina and
Karaoguz teaches identifying menu data, generating textual menu
data based on menu data and providing the textual menu data to the
second display as recited in claim 8?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejections and the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 26.
Independent Ciaims 1, 14, and 24.
With respect to the first issue, the Examiner provides a comprehensive
response to Appellants' arguments and finds that Karaoguz is analogous art
as it is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem which the inventor is involved. Answer 7-9.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Appellants' invention encompasses
viewing television signals and Karaoguz is directed to television and other
video systems. Answer 8. We concur with the Examiner and note
Karaoguz's teaching is broader than just television, see paragraph 20 stating
that the invention is not limited to use on a television. Further, the Examiner
finds that Karaoguz is reasonably pertinent to the Appellants' invention as
Karaoguz's device allows users to preview video on other displays. Answer
4
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
9. \Ve concur and also note that Karaoguz's teaching of using the system to
review what is being displayed on other televisions throughout the house is
pertinent to Appellants' stated purposes of allowing a parent to be aware of
what a child is viewing (Karaoguz para. 39 and Appellants' Spec. p. 4).
Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner's rejection.
With respect to the second issue, the Examiner finds that Karaoguz
teaches when a laptop is used to glimpse at what is on television the laptop
receives slow motion video or refreshed snapshots, restricted frame video,
and is prevented from playing full motion video. Answer 11, citing para. 36
of Karaoguz. We concur with the Examiner. By teaching that refreshed
snapshots (a reduced frame rate video signal) are sent to the laptop computer
the laptop is prevented from displaying full motion video. Further, as
identified by the Examiner, Appellants' statement that Karaoguz would
strive to achieve full video if bandwidth is available, is unsupported by
evidence. Karaoguz teaches the decision as to the video rate used is based
upon the device or user preferences, and Karaoguz makes no mention of
bandwidth. As such, if the device or user preferences dictate a reduced
frame rate, use of a higher frame rate is prevented. Thus, Appellants'
arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection.
With respect to the third issue the Examiner provides a reasoned
rationale finding that Tranchina teaches a vehicle console capable of
wireless reception of audio/video and that Karaoguz teaches a system which
allows a user to glimpse at what is on a separate television by receiving slow
motion video or snapshots. Answer 12-13. The Examiner concludes that
5
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
this combination allows one user on one device to monitor what is being
displayed on the other device. Answer 13. We consider this to be a
reasonable rationale as it is demonstrating that the combination is merely the
use of known techniques to perform their known function. As such,
Appellants' arguments directed to the third issue have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejection. As these three issues are the only issues
presented with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 24, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Dependent Claim 8
With respect to the fourth issue, the Examiner responds by finding
that both Tranchina and Karaoguz teach generating and displaying menu
data to the user. Answer 14--15. We concur with the Examiner. We further
note that while the portions of Tranchina and Karaoguz cited by the
Examiner do not explicitly state generating the textual menu from decoded
menu data we consider this limitation to be implied by each of the
references' teachings. For example, Tranchina teaches that the display can
be generated from a DVD or a web page, each of which are known to
include menu data that is decoded and displayed (see, Tranchina, para. 49
(DVD) and 54 (web pages) and Appellants' Specification para. 4 (stating
DVDs have menus that are graphically displayed)). Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments directed to claim 8 have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
Dependent Claims 2 through 4, and 6, 7,
9 through 13, 15 through 23, 25, and 26
Appellants have not presented separate arguments directed to
dependent claims 2 through 4, and 6, 7, 9 through 13, 15 through 23, 25, and
6
Appeal2013-006071
Application 11/991,549
26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the
same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 4 and 6
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
7