Ex Parte Grady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

11549608 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111549,608 10/13/2006 Jeff Grady
24737 7590 09/23/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2006P02788US 7239
EXAMINER
SHIBRU, HELEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF GRADY, GAREY DE ANGELIS,
ANDREW GREEN, and VINCENT K. GUSTAFSON
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-80. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to interface systems
for portable digital media storage and playback devices used for on-line
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
downloading, storing, and playing digital media files (Abstract). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A docking assembly for interfacing a device having
telephonic portable digital media storage and playback capability
and a first display with a system for media reproduction having
a second display and a first amplifier configured to drive at least
one speaker, the docking assembly comprising:
an electrical coupling configured to engage the device;
a microprocessor coupled to the electrical coupling and
configured to control the device;
a remote controller configured to receive telephonic
signals;
a receiver coupled to the microprocessor and configured
to receive input signals from the remote controller and provide
output signals; and
a transceiver configured to rebroadcast the telephonic
signals between the device and the remote controller.
54. An apparatus to control a device having telephonic portable
digital media storage and playback capability, a system for media
reproduction, and a docking assembly for interfacing the device with the
system, the apparatus comprising:
a remote controller including
a receiver configured to receive telephonic signals from the
docking assembly;
a speaker configured to reproduce an audible telephonic signal;
a voice transducer configured to produce electrical vocal output
signals;
a first transmitter coupled to the voice transducer and
configured to transmit the electrical vocal output signals;
2
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
a second transmitter configured to provide control signals to the
docking assembly; and
a charge storage to provide electric power to any of the signal
receiver, the speaker, the first transmitter; and the second
transmitter.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bodnar
Bonney
Edwards
Poslinski
Silverbrook
Rutledge
Matz
US 2004/0097264 Al
US 2004/0117062 Al
US 2005/0179559 Al
US 2006/0045462 Al
US 7,106,888 Bl
US 2007/0101039 Al
US 2013/0055317 Al
REJECTIONS
May 20, 2004
June 17, 2004
Aug. 18, 2005
Mar. 2, 2006
Sept. 12, 2006
May 3, 2007
Feb.28,2013
Claims 1-3, 5-20, 22-27, 36-46, 50-53, and 75-80 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rutledge and Matz
(Final Act. 4--10).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rutledge, Matz, and Silverbrook (Final Act. 10-11).
Claims 29-35 and 47--49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rutledge, Matz, and Bonney (Final Act. 11-12).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rutledge, Matz, and Bodnar (Final Act. 12).
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rutledge, Matz, and Edwards (Final Act. 13).
3
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
Claims 54--57, 59, 61---64, 66-71, 73, and 74 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Matz (Final Act. 14--16).
Claim 58 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matz and Poslinski (Final Act. 16).
Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matz and Silverbrook (Final Act. 16).
Claim 65 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matz and Bodnar (Final Act. 17).
Claim 72 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matz and Edwards (Final Act. 17-18).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3, 5-20, 22-27, 36--40, 41--46, 50--53, and
75-80
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Rutledge and
Matz (App. Br. 8-14). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Rutledge and Matz teaches or suggests "a docking assembly for interfacing a
device having telephonic portable digital media storage"; "a remote
controller configured to receive telephonic signals"; and "a transceiver
configured to rebroadcast the telephonic signals between the device and the
4
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
remote controller," as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately
recited in claim 41?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Rutledge and Matz?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With
respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Rutledge fails to teach or suggest the recited docking
assembly having a transceiver for receiving and rebroadcasting telephonic
signals to the docking assembly's remote controller (App. Br. 9). According
to Appellants, Rutledge teaches portable devices; charging of a portable
device through a user control interface 235 integral to docking station 120;
and sending signals by the docking system, to configure proper voltage
connection of the power supply, but not the recited transceiver (id. (citing
Rutledge i-fi-14, 56, 66)). Furthermore, Appellants argue neither Rutledge nor
Matz teaches or suggests the recited docking assembly having a remote
controller (id. at 9-10). Rather, Appellants contend, Matz discloses a
display device having a remote control device and therefore, does not teach a
remote controller configured to receive telephonic signals or rebroadcast the
signals between the device and the remote controller (id. at 10). Appellants
5
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
thus argue Matz' s remote control device does not belong or function with
the docking assembly or function as recited (id. at 10-11 ).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and reasoning. Initially, we
note, as set forth by the Examiner, the claim recites "a transceiver
configured to rebroadcast the telephonic signals between the device and the
remote controller" (Ans. 17). Additionally, Appellants' Specification states
"[t ]he term 'transceiver' in this context refers to any combination of
transmitter and receiver present in the same device" (Spec. i-f 45). Rutledge
teaches that a portable device may be a cellular telephone (Rutledge i-f 4) and
that the docking station communicates with the portable device to provide
non-portable performance (id. i-f 7), thus teaching or at least suggesting a
transceiver (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner further cites to Matz (Final Act. 2-3). Matz teaches a
display device that includes a remote control interface and remote control
receiver (Matz i-f 40). "The remote control interface 234 comprises a suitable
wireless data interface for sending data to and receiving data from the
remote control device 106" (id.). Thus, the display device of Matz
comprises a transceiver. We also agree with the Examiner that the
transceiver of Matz rebroadcasts the telephonic signals between the display
device and the remote controller because the remote controller can be
utilized to initiate wireless telephone calls from the display device (Ans. 22,
(see also Matz i-f 43). Initially, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
interpretation of "rebroadcast" is in error (id.). Indeed, Appellants' own
Specification describes "rebroadcast" in one embodiment as receiving,
retransmitting, or otherwise relaying incoming signals (Spec. i-f 45). In light
of this interpretation, we are not persuaded Matz fails to teach the docking
6
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
assembly comprising a transceiver configured to rebroadcast signals, as
recited in claim 1.
We also are not persuaded Matz fails to teach rebroadcasting
telephonic signals. Specifically, Matz teaches telephonic signals are
received and retransmitted by the transceiver in the remote control interface
234 of the docking station to the remote control device 106 (Matz i-fi-1 4, 40-
43).
Furthermore, we are unpersuaded the transceiver is not configured to
rebroadcast the telephonic signals between the device and the remote
controller. Matz teaches the docking station connects to a wireless
telecommunications network, and receives and transmits data, including, for
example digital video content, wireless radio, or telephone calls (Matz i-fi-1 8-
9). As the docking station further communicates this data with the remote
control device (Matz i-fi-140-43), we are unpersuaded Matz fails to teach "a
transceiver configured to rebroadcast the telephonic signals between the
device and the remote controller." (See also Matz, claim 8.)
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Matz's remote control
device is operative to communicate with the display device over a wireless
connection (Ans. 19-20; Matz i-f 41, Fig. 3). Matz further teaches the remote
control device may be utilized to initiate a wireless telephone call or to
respond to an incoming call request, and is used during wireless telephone
calls (Matz i-fi-143--44). Therefore, we are not persuaded the combination of
Rutledge and Matz fails to teach "a remote controller configured to receive
telephonic signals," as recited in claim 1. Indeed, Matz describes "the
remote control device may include a microphone and a speaker ... to
7
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
receive audio and to transmit the audio to the apparatus wirelessly for use in
the wireless telephone call" (Matz i-f 13).
Further, Appellants have not persuaded us Matz teaches away from
the recited transceiver (App. Br. 12) as Appellants have not identified where
an ordinarily skilled artisan "upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be
led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant."
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We emphasize additionally, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Rutledge (Ans. 23-24) and Matz whereas Appellants are arguing the
references individually (App. Br. 13). Specifically, the Examiner modifies
Rutledge's system with Matz's remote controller (Final Act. 5; Ans. 23-24).
Appellants further argue, with respect to claims 16-19, Matz
describes only audio is shared with the remote controller and not digital
signals, text, communication notification, and caller identification (App. Br.
12). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Matz discloses various types of data are described (Ans. 23;
Final Act. 7-8; Matz i-f 27). Appellants have not persuaded us Matz does not
teach or at least suggest the disputed limitations. For example, Matz
discloses communications between the remote control interface of the
docking station and the remote control device is via a transceiver that is
compatible with the BLUETOOTH or WI-FI communications (Matz i-f 40).
Therefore, we are not persuaded Matz fails to teach the telephonic signal
comprises a digital signal, as recited in claim 16. Matz additionally
discloses signals comprising caller identification information, digital video
content, and other information (id. i-fi-127, 43). Moreover, we are
8
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
unpersuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would find it uniquely challenging
or beyond their skill to transmit a data signal with specific content (text,
communication notification, or caller identification) as part of a telephonic
signal.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Rutledge and Matz teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claim 1. Independent claim 41 is not separately
argued and thus, for the reasons set forth above, falls with independent claim
1. Similarly, dependent claims 2, 3, 5-15, 20, 22-27, 36-40, 41--46, 50-53,
and 75-80, not separately argued fall with their respective independent
claims. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Rutledge and Matz teaches or suggests the limitations as recited
dependent claims 16-19. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3,
5-20, 22-27, 36-46, 50-53, and 75-80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Rutledge and Matz.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4, 21, 28-35, and 47--49
The remaining dependent claims are not separately argued and thus,
fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the
rejections of claims 4, 21, 28-35, and 47--49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 54-57, 59, 61-64, 66--71, 73, and 74
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Matz (App. Br.
13-14). The issue presented by the arguments is:
9
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Matz discloses "a receiver
configured to receive telephonic signals from the docking assembly," as
recited in claim 54?
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not specifically argue independent claim 54, instead
relying on the arguments set forth for claim 1 (App. Br. 14). The only
limitation of claim 54 we consider argued by Appellants is "a receiver
configured to receive telephonic signals from the docking assembly." As set
forth above, we find Matz discloses a remote control device that may be
utilized to initiate a wireless telephone call or respond to an incoming call
request (Matz i-f 43, Fig. 3). (See also Matz i-f 13). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Matz discloses "a receiver
configured to receive telephonic signals from the docking assembly," as
recited in independent claim 54. Dependent claims 55-57, 59, 61---64, 66-
71, 73, and 74, are not separately argued and thus, fall with their respective
independent claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 54--5 7, 5 9,
61---64, 66-71, 73, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Matz.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 54--57, 59, 61---64, 66-71, 73, and
74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Matz is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-53, 58, 60, 65, 72, and 75-80
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
10
Appeal2014-009506
Application 11/549,608
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11