Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10808015 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAN SCOTT JOHNSON
____________________

Appeal 2010-009850
Application 10/808,015
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009850
Application 10/808,015

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 11-19, 23, and 25-35. Claims 8-10, 20-22, and
24 have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an audio/video (A/V) component
networking system. The system includes source components, each source
component adapted to provide A/V program data (Spec. ¶ [0020], Fig. 1). A
sink component coupled to a presentation device receives A/V program data
from at least one of the plurality of source components and transmits the
received A/V program data to the presentation device (Spec. ¶ [0021], Fig.
1). The sink component presents to the user a filtered aggregated listing of
the A/V program data available from each of the plurality of source
components based on a type of the presentation device (Spec. ¶¶ [0072] and
[0074]).

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. An audio/video (A/V) component networking system,
comprising:

a plurality of source components, each source component
adapted to provide A/V program data; and

Appeal 2010-009850
Application 10/808,015

3
a sink component configured to be communicatively
coupled to a presentation device, the sink component adapted to
receive A/V program data from at least one of the plurality of
source components and transmit the received A/V program data
to the presentation device, and wherein the sink component is
configured to present to a user a filtered aggregated listing of
the A/V program data available from each of the plurality of
source components based on a type of the presentation device.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 13, 19, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams (US
6,202,211 B1, Mar. 13, 2001), Accarie (US 2003/0048757 A1, Mar. 13,
2003), and Salmonsen (US 2004/0049797 A1, Mar. 11, 2004). Ans. 3-9.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11, 12, 14-18, 25-27, 30, 33,
and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams,
Accarie, Salmonsen, and Hunter (US 2002/0056118 A1, May 9, 2002). Ans.
9-15.
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the combination of Williams, Accarie, and
Salmonsen does not teach or suggest presenting to a user filtered
aggregated listing of A/V program data available from each of the
plurality of source components based on a type of presentation
device. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 6. In particular, Appellant contends
that providing “different types of content files by media
management software, as taught by Salmonsen, is completely
different from presenting filtered aggregated listing of A/V
Appeal 2010-009850
Application 10/808,015

4
program data based on a type of the presentation device.” Reply
Br. 5.
2. Appellant contends that “[a]bsent the teachings provided by the
present invention, this person of ordinary skill in the art would
merely have provided a play list, as taught by Salmonsen, without
any regard to a type of the presentation device. The only apparent
basis for making the allegation of obviousness based on Williams,
Accarie, and Salmonsen, is impermissible hindsight that has
benefited from the teachings of the present invention.” App. Br. 8.

Issues on Appeal1
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
the Examiner used improper hindsight?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
Williams, Accarie, and Salmonsen fail to teach or suggest presenting to a
user a filtered aggregated listing of the A/V program data available from
each of the plurality of source components based on a type of the
presentation device, as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-7, 11, 12, 14-18, 25-28,
30-33. Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for purposes of this
rejection.
Appeal 2010-009850
Application 10/808,015

5
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
As to Appellant’s contention 1, we disagree because as the Examiner
points out, figure 9 of Salmonsen teaches a play list which contains
graphical user interface (GUI) information such as navigation information
and graphic elements to describe the type of files available for display. Ans.
17. Moreover, as pointed out by the Appellant “the media management
software 916 [in Salmonsen] may supply various types of content files
including music files, photo files, video files.” Reply Br. 5. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that the cited disclosure of Salmonsen describes an
aggregated listing of A/V program data where Music, Photos, and Videos
are presented separately. Ans. 17.
As to Appellant’s contention 2, we do not agree that the Examiner’s
rejection is an improper hindsight reconstruction as it does not include
knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant's disclosure, but rather takes
into account the teachings of Williams, Accarie, and Salmonsen; i.e.,
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made. See In re McLaughlin 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper.”).
Appeal 2010-009850
Application 10/808,015

6
Further, we deem a user selecting from a dynamic menu display that
provides interoperability and resource management among devices to be
well within the skill of an artisan. Ans. 16, 17. Contrary to Appellants’
allegation, the Examiner has not resorted to hindsight.
Appellants’ arguments directed to claims 13, 19, 23, 29, 34, and 35
rely on the same reasoning as argued with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 9-
14). The Examiner’s response (Ans. 17-19) to Appellants’ arguments
directed to claims 13, 19, 23, 29, 34, and 35 present the same reasoning
discussed above with respect to claim 1. As with claim 1 we concur with the
Examiner’s reasoning. Accordingly we are not persuaded of err in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 19, 23, 29, 34, and 35.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 11-19, 23, and 25-
35 as set forth above.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc