Ex Parte Garg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12214715 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/214,715 06/20/2008 Praggya Garg SNY-X9303.01 2470
24337 7590 09/29/2016
MILLER PATENT SERVICES
2500 DOCKERY LANE
RALEIGH, NC 27606
EXAMINER
TELAN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 PRAGGYA GARG
____________________

Appeal 2014-001300
Application 12/214,715
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–6, 8, 11–14, 17, 18, and 20–31. Claims 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 19
are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2014-001300
Application 12/214,715

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A television set diagnostic method, comprising:
providing a user selectable menu selection on a television
set display that invokes a diagnostic process;
running a process on the television set that self-invokes the
diagnostic process without need for a user to invoke the
diagnostic process, where the diagnostic process is self-invoked
at a time with the television set is inactive;
upon the invoking of the diagnostic process, carrying out
a plurality of functional tests upon the television set;
where the plurality of tests include confirming the
software version is carried out for the television set’s front end,
back end, television control processor;
reading current configuration settings from a memory in
the television set;
transmitting results from the plurality of tests and the
current configuration settings to a diagnostic center via a
connection from the television set to the Internet;
if the diagnostic process is self-invoked and a problem is
identified, notifying the user of the problem;
carrying out a statistical analysis of data in a knowledge
base to identify recurrent problems; and
carrying out an interactive two-way communication with
the diagnostic center to resolve any problems identified with the
television set.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 11, 21, and 24–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Lee (US 6,313,873 B1; Nov. 6,
2001) (“Lee ’873”), Nichols et al. (US 2006/0230312 A1; Oct. 12, 2006),
Mickle et al. (US 2007/0162930 A1; July 12, 2007), Feng et al. (US
2007/0220571 A1; Sept. 20, 2007), Fratkina et al. (US 2001/0049688 A1;
Appeal 2014-001300
Application 12/214,715

3
Dec. 6, 2001), Lee (US 5,631,698; May 20, 1997) (“Lee ’698”), and
Chatelier (WO 00/79787 A1, Dec 28, 2000).
Claims 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Lee ’873, Nichols, Mickle, Feng, Fratkina, Lee ’698,
Chatelier, and Huerta et al. (US 2007/0168457 A1; July 19, 2007).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable
in view of Lee ’873, Nichols, Mickle, Feng, Fratkina, Lee ’698, Chatelier,
and Kubo et al. (US 2006/0170569 A1; Aug. 3, 2006).
Claims 5, 12–14, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Lee ’873, Kubo, Nichols, Mickle,
Huerta, Fratkina, Feng, Lee ’698, and Chatelier.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Lee ’873, Nichols, Mickle, Feng, Fratkina, Lee ’698,
Chatelier, and Russell et al. (US 2009/0178075 A1; July 9, 2009).
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Lee ’873, Nichols, Mickle, Feng, Fratkina, Lee ’698,
Chatelier, and Smith (US 2003/0172072 A1; Sept. 11, 2003).

ANALYSIS
We have considered the Examiner’s rejections in view of each of
Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record. App. Br. 9–16; Reply Br.
4–8. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. We agree with and adopt as
our own the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We address certain of
Appellant’s arguments primarily for emphasis.
Appeal 2014-001300
Application 12/214,715

4
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments that the sheer number of references
cited in the Examiner’s rejection evidences impermissible hindsight or
otherwise weighs against the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness (App.
Br. 9–10), we agree with the Examiner’s findings which evidence that
Appellant’s invention represents combinations of known elements and steps
according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (holding the combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results). Further, while Appellant
argues that certain limitations are missing from Feng (App. Br. 13–14; Reply
Br. 6–7) and Huerta (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 7), Appellant’s arguments
attack the references individually and fail to substantively address the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions relating to the combined teachings of
the prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Indeed, the
Examiner made detailed findings to show where and how each reference
evidences that each limitation in Appellant’s claims was known in the art
and how and why the claimed invention would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill, and we agree with the Examiner’s findings and the
Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in
combining certain of the cited references. See App. Br. 10–12, 15; Reply
Br. 4–7. For example, while Chatelier explains that requiring users to
manually “rebuild” customized lists of broadcast services was a “major
drawback” of certain prior art systems, the Examiner cites Chatelier as
Appeal 2014-001300
Application 12/214,715

5
evidence that it was known to perform system tests during periods of user
inactivity, not for Chatelier’s process of building lists of broadcast services.
See Ans. 5, 7–10, 14. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant that
Chatelier is inconsistent with or otherwise improperly included in the cited
combination of references.
Having considered each of Appellant’s arguments, we agree with the
Examiner and sustain the rejections of claims 1–6, 8, 11–14, 17, 18, and 20–
31.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 11–14, 17, 18,
and 20–31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED