Ex Parte Jotikasthira

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2014

10138051 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARAMPORN JOTIKASTHIRA
___________

Appeal 2012-004778
Application 10/138,051
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 29–38 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “A device and method for handling and
transferring data associated with a main broadcast program (e.g. music
names, singer names and advertisement) from a broadcast station (radio,
television, etc.) or a cable television set top box.” Abstract.

1 An oral hearing was held on November 6, 2014.
Appeal 2012-004778
Application 10/138,051
2

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)

29. A system for receiving broadcast signals comprising a main
program and information data indicative of the main program, the
system comprising:

a first receiver configured to receive and process the
broadcast signals and wirelessly transmit the information data;

a wireless data transfer device, comprising:

a transceiving unit;

a control unit operatively connected to the transceiving
unit, the control unit controlling data transmission;

a main memory operatively connected to the control unit
and controlled by the control unit;

a buffer memory operatively connected with the
transceiving unit for temporary storing of the information
data received from the transceiving unit, the buffer memory
being adapted to have the information data contained
therein replaced by new information data as the new
information data is received from the transceiver unit, the
buffer memory being operatively connected with the main
memory for capturing the information data to the main
memory, the buffer memory operatively connected and
controlled by the control unit; and

an input/output unit operatively connected with the
control unit and comprising a button, the input/output unit
being a binary input/output unit configured to send
commands to the control unit by respective sequences of
manual activation of the button;

wherein the control unit is configured to initiate
capture of the information data stored in the buffer
Appeal 2012-004778
Application 10/138,051
3

memory into the main memory in response to a first
sequence of manual activation of the button and to cause
the transceiver to transmit the information data captured
information in response to a second sequence of manual
activation of the button; and

a second receiver configured to receive the captured
information data transmitted from the wireless data transfer
device and perform a function based on the received information
data.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 29–33 and 35–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sorensen (US Patent Number 6,628,729 B1; issued
September 30, 2003), Mankovitz (US Patent Number 5,523,794; issued June
4, 1996), and Yuen (US Patent Number 5,488,409; issued January 30, 1996).
Answer 5–16.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sorensen, Mankovitz, Yuen, and Ellis (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2005/0028208 A1; published February 3,
2005). Answer 16–17.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sorensen, Mankovitz, Yuen, and Ellis. Answer 17–18.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 11, 2011) and the Answer (mailed
November 7, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
Appeal 2012-004778
Application 10/138,051
4

other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the analysis as follows.
Appellant argues, “While the Examiner contends that Mankovitz
discloses a buffer memory and a main memory, the Examiner has not
proffered how or any reason to combine the two references to result in both
memories residing in the same transceiver, together with the control unit and
input/output unit.” Appeal Brief 13. Appellant further argues:
If the Examiner is suggesting that a third, temporary memory
could have been added per Mankovitz, he has not indicated to
which memory 24 or 34 such a third memory could have been
added. If the temporary memory is to be added to memory 24,
the temporary memory would not be part of the wireless data
transfer device, as required by the claims; if the temporary
memory is to be added to memory 34, Sorensen teaches away
from such and addition, as Sorensen teaches the PDA
requesting data from the Digital TV by activating the Input
Device 30 as the data is needed. There is no need to protect
memory 34 from being overwritten in the scheme disclosed in
Sorensen.
Appeal Brief 14.
The Examiner finds “Sorensen discloses digital receiver 12 or
‘wireless data transfer device’ comprises memory 24 or ‘main memory’ as
claimed in claim 29” wherein the main memory is used to store received
data packets. Answer 20. The Examiner modifies Sorensen with
Mankovitz’s storage buffer because “Sorensen fails to disclose digital
receiver 12 or ‘wireless data transfer device’ comprising buffer memory.”
Id. at 20–21. The Examiner concludes that such modification would allow a
Appeal 2012-004778
Application 10/138,051
5

user to protect the store data packets of memory 24 located in the digital
receiver 12. Id. at 20.
Appellant’s teach away argument is directed towards modifying
memory 34 and not memory 24 of Sorensen. See Appeal Brief 14. The
Examiner proposes modifying memory 24 of Sorensen and not memory 34
as Appellant contends and therefore Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
See Answer 20. We also do not find Appellant’s argument pertaining to the
addition of a buffer to Sorensen’s memory 24 persuasive because memory
24 is part of the wireless data transfer device 12. See Sorensen Figure 1.
Appellant does not provide an explanation as to why Sorensen’s component
12 is not considered to be a wireless data transfer device as the Examiner
finds.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 29, as well as independent claim 35 commensurate in
scope. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 30–34 and 36–38, whose merits were not argued
separately, for the reasons articulated above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 29–38 are
affirmed.

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2012-004778
Application 10/138,051
6

tj