Ex Parte Dong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 201511655544 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SUIWU DONG and SONG JIN ____________ Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and institute a new ground of rejection within the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “multimedia server module.” Abstract. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VIXS Systems, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 2 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A multimedia client/server system comprising: a multimedia server module, coupleable to a plurality of multimedia sources that produce at least one video signal and an associated audio signal, the multimedia server module including: an encoder module that encodes the at least one video signal to produce an encoded video signal; an RF server transceiver module, coupled to the encoder module, that transmits a server signal that includes the encoded video signal over a wireless communication path, that receives a client signal over the wireless communication path and that demodulates the client signal to produce a video timing signal; and an audio processing module, coupled to the RF transceiver module, that produces an audio output from the audio signal having a time delay, wherein the time delay is based on the video timing signal, wherein the audio processing module includes a wired interface to couple the audio output to an audio playback device that is local to the multimedia server module; and a client module, coupleable to at least one client device, the client module including: an RF client transceiver module that receives the server signal over the wireless communication path and demodulates the server signal to produce a received encoded signal; and a decoder module, coupled to the RF client transceiver module, that decodes the received encoded signal into a decoded output signal and the video timing signal; wherein the RF client transceiver module transmits the client signal that includes the video timing signal over the wireless communication path. Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 3 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 8–15, 18–25, and 28–30 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miki (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0110110 A1, May 17, 2007) and She (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0040759 A1, Feb. 14, 2008). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 16, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miki, She, and Okada (U.S. Patent No. 5,668,601, Sept. 16, 1997). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 17, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Miki, She, and Seo (U.S. Patent No. 7,327,792 B2, Feb. 5, 2008). ISSUES Appellants appeal the rejection of claims 1–30, relying on limitations common to independent claims 1, 11, and 21 and presenting no additional arguments for patentability of the dependent claims. Appeal Br. 5–9. Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which is representative of the three independent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). The issues presented by Appellants’ contentions are: 1. whether the Examiner erred in finding that Miki discloses a “multimedia server module,” as recited in claim 1; 2. whether the Examiner erred in finding that Miki discloses a multimedia server module “coupleable to a plurality of multimedia sources,” as recited in claim 1; and Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 4 3. whether the Examiner erred in finding that Miki discloses “an encoder module that encodes the at least one video signal to produce an encoded video signal,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS 1. Multimedia Server Module Limitation The Examiner found that the home theater system disclosed in Miki teaches a “multimedia server module,” as recited in claim 1. Answer 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner provides no basis for this position. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4. This is in effect an argument that the Examiner’s rejection is in error on its face. We disagree. We agree with the Examiner that the home theater system disclosed in Miki teaches the “multimedia server module” limitation because it provides a multimedia stream to a television display and to audio speakers. Answer 13. As such, the home theater system of Miki acts as a server module to the television display and the audio speakers. Appellants’ make the bare assertion that the “home theater 10 is a home theater . . . and not a server module” without directing us to rebuttal evidence to overcome Examiner’s finding. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4. This is insufficient to show error in the Examiner’s rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (noting that an argument that merely points out what a claim recites is unpersuasive). See also In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”); Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 5 Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[A]… reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.” ). Similarly, Appellants argue that because Miki describes a device external to the home theater system as an AV server, this somehow precludes the home theater system from also being a server. Appeal Br. 7. But Appellants provide no explanation or evidence of why an AV server would somehow preclude the home theater system of also being a server. Without evidentiary support we find these arguments unpersuasive. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence). 2. Coupleable to a Plurality of Multimedia Sources Limitation Appellants also argue that the Home Theater System disclosed in Miki is not “coupleable to a plurality of multimedia sources,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner that Miki teaches this limitation. Miki explains that the AV stream transmission device, which communicates with and provides the input to the home theater system, can be an AV server, a network compatible DVD/HDD/CD player, and a tuner. Answer 14 (citing Miki ¶¶ 13, 58.) Thus Miki teaches that the home theater system is “coupleable to a plurality of multimedia sources.” Appellants argue that Figure 1 of Miki shows that the home theater system is coupled to a single source, the AV stream transmission device 610, and not to a plurality of multimedia sources. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue that an AV server, DVD/HDD/CD player, and tuner are examples of the types of devices that the AV transmission device 610 can be, but not that the home theater system can be coupled to multiple such AV transmission devices 610. Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded. Implicit in Appellants’ Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 6 arguments is that claim 1 requires the multimedia server to be coupled to a plurality of multimedia sources at the same time. We find no such limitation in the claim. The claim only requires that the multimedia server module be coupleable to a plurality of multimedia sources. Here, “able” denotes “capable of” but not necessarily coupled to. Consistent with the Examiner’s reasoning, Miki discloses that the home theater system is coupleable to several multimedia sources, such as those mentioned above. 3. Encoder Module Limitation The Examiner relied on the video processing section 160 of Miki’s home theater system as teaching an “encoder module that encodes the at least one video signal to produce an encoded video signal,” as claim 1 recites. We disagree with the Examiner’s analysis. Appellants correctly point out that “video processing section 160 operates as a video decoder and not as an encoder module.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Miki ¶ 80 stating that the “video processing section 160 decodes the supplied video stream, and supplies the decoded video signal to the video amplifier 240.”) Thus the video processing section 160 of Miki would not suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art an “encoder module.” The Examiner further relies on Figures 7–8 and paragraph 75 as showing that the video processing section 160 includes an MPEG2-TS encoder. We disagree that the MPEG2-TS encoder, shown in Figures 7–8 and discussed in paragraph 75, pertains to the operation of the video processing section 160. We agree with Appellants that although an MPEG2- TS encoder is present in Figures 7–8 it is part of a transmission-end terminal device which would not be part of the home theater system and therefore also not part of the video processing section 160. Reply Br. 5. Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 7 We conclude that the Examiner has not shown that the video processing section 160 of Miki’s home theater system is an encoder. The Examiner also has not shown that any of the other references of record teach this feature. Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Miki teaches the encoder module limitation of claim 1. Summary Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions specifically regarding the encoder module limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and of independent claims 11 and 21, which contain substantially similar limitations. We also do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims which also include this encoder limitation. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION WITHIN 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Claim 1 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miki and She. Except with regard to the encoder module limitation, we adopt Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding claim 1 as emphasized supra. In addition, Miki discloses that home theater system 10 includes a stream conversion section 130. See Figure 1. Miki further discloses that: The stream conversion section 130 converts the format of the supplied AV stream into a format with which the stream can be processed by the video processing section 160 and the audio processing 170 of the main unit section 110. The stream conversion section 130 then supplies the converted AV stream Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 8 to the stream synchronization section 140. For example, in case where the video processing section 160 and the audio processing section 170 are compliant with MPEG2-PS while the supplied AV stream is based on MPEG4, the stream conversion section 130 converts the MPEG4 format into the MPEG2-PS format. Miki ¶ 63 (emphasis added). As the above paragraph explains, the stream conversion section 130 of the home theater system can convert the format of an AV stream from one encoded format (e.g. MPEG4) to another encoded format (e.g. MPEG2-PS). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize stream conversion section 130 as an “encoder module.” Such a conclusion is supported by Appellants’ own Specification which describes the encoder module in much the same way. For example, the Specification states that an “encoder module 230 generates an encoded signal 232, such as encoded video signal 150 from an unencoded or encoded multimedia input signal 214.” Spec. 8, ll. 6–7; see also Spec. 8, l. 19 – 9, l. 16 (describing the encoder module as accepting an already encoded signal and processing it to convert it from one encoded format (e.g. MPEG2/4) to another encoded format (e.g. H.264)). We therefore conclude that Miki teaches the limitation of an “encoder module that encodes the at least one video signal to produce an encoded video signal,” as recited in claim 1. Having adopted the Examiner’s findings for all other limitations, we reject claim 1 as unpatentable over Miki and She. Claims 2–30 We have entered a new ground of rejection for claim 1. We leave to the Examiner to consider the patentability of claims 2–30 in light of our Appeal 2012-012466 Application 11/655,544 9 findings and conclusions regarding claim 1. The fact that we did not enter new grounds of rejection for claims 2–30 should not be construed to mean that we consider claims 2–30 to be patentable over the prior art of record. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–30 is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This decision contains a new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that a “new ground of rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner . . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation