Ex Parte Lavelle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2013

11556486 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PATRICK M. LAVELLE, JAMES R. TRANCHINA, and
GEORGE C. SCHEDIVY
____________

Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. We also enter a new rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants describe the invention as follows:
A media system for a vehicle comprises a media unit
including a display mounted to a seat of the vehicle, a databus
line running from the media unit through the seat, and a
plurality of media sources electrically connected to the databus
line.
Spec. 18, Abstract of the Disclosure.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A media system for a vehicle, comprising:
a media unit including a display and a first media source
mounted to a seat in the vehicle; and
a first databus electrically connected to a plurality of
media sources, wherein the media unit is electrically connected
to the first databus for receiving media from the plurality of
media sources, the plurality of media sources and the first
databus are positioned remote from the seat, and media from
the first media source is provided to the first databus.
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Reed US 6,058,288 May 2, 2000

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed May
29, 2009 (“Final Rej.”), Appeal Brief filed February 22, 2010 (“App. Br.”),
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 3, 2010 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief
filed November 3, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

3
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Reed. Ans., pp. 3-6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3-25 are rejected as anticipated by Reed. Only claims 1,
14, and 21 are independent. In accord with the recitations of claims 1, 14,
and 21, all claims require a databus, seat-mounted media unit having a
display and media source providing media to the databus, and remote media
sources transmitting over the databus to the media unit. The Examiner reads
these limitations on Reed’s teachings in two different respects, each of
which is persuasively contested by Appellants as being in error.
First, in the final rejection prompting this appeal, the Examiner reads
(i) the claimed databus on Reed’s cable groups 26, (ii) the claimed media
unit on Reed’s “Video Display Units” (VDUs) 14, and (iii) the claimed
media sources on Reed’s “Entertainment Servers” (ES) 24. Final Rej., 2; see
also Ans., pp. 3-4. Appellants correctly contest these findings as failing to
establish that Reed’s VDU’s 14 (claimed media unit) include media sources
transmitting media over the cable groups 26. App. Br., p. 7.
Second, in the Answer’s “Response to Arguments” section, the
Examiner newly reads the claimed media unit on Reed’s “Video Distribution
Box” (VDB) 18. Ans., p. 7. Appellants persuasively contest these findings
as failing to establish that the VDB’s 18 (claimed media unit) are mounted to
seats and include media sources transmitting media over the cable groups
26. Reply Br., pp. 2-3.
Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

4
For the above reasons, the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 3-25 over
Reed is not sustained.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims
1, 5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reed.2
Claim 1
As discussed above, claim 1 requires a databus, seat-mounted media
unit having a display and media source providing media to the databus, and
remote media sources transmitting over the databus to the media unit. These
limitations are met by: moving Reed’s “Entertainment Switching Unit”
(ESU) 22 into the “Communications Control Unit” (CCU) 29; using a
databus to carry media and control data between Reed’s CCU 29/ESU 22 (a
CCU 29 including the ESU 22), VDB’s 18, and ES’s 24; and mounting the
CCU 29/ESU 22 to a seat. After these modifications, the claimed databus
reads on the databus, the claimed media unit and included media source
respectively read on the CCU 29/ESU 22, and the claimed media sources
read on the ES’s 24. For easier understanding of the modification and its
resulting configuration, we have reproduced Reed’s Figure 2 below.

2 Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are separately addressed by Appellants’ briefs.
Because we have been briefed on only these claims, we leave the Examiner
and Appellants to consider the remaining claims in light of our findings.
The exercise of authority under 37 CFR 41.50(b) is discretionary. No
inferences should be drawn from the lack of new grounds of rejection for
other claims.
App
App

parti
ES’s
direc
7, ll.
devi
skill

3 The
datab
exam
that
expl

eal 2011-0
lication 11
Reed’s F
Impleme
cularly be
24 are all
t data betw
50-55. W
ces is a me
in the art i

skill in th
us techno
ples or ex
is, reflecte
anations w
04072
/556,486
igure 2 is
ntation of
cause Reed
interfaced
een the V
e find that
re commo
n 2006 at

e art in 20
logy, is re
planations
d by Appe
ere not ne
a schemat
the databu
’s disclos
such that
DB’s 18 a
transmitti
n sense sim
the time o

06, includ
flected by
of a datab
llants’ imp
eded to dis
5
ic view of
s is a com
ed CCU 2
the CCU 2
nd ES’s 2
ng data vi
plificatio
f Appellan
ing the art
the Specif
us (see e.g
licit belie
close an e
the cited s
mon sense
9, ESU 22
9 and ESU
4. Reed, c
a a databu
n that was
ts’ filing d
’s general
ication’s l
., Spec., p
f that such
nabled dat
ystem.
modifica
, VDB’s 1
22 colle
ol. 6, ll. 1
s shared by
within th
ate.3 See
understan
ack of in-d
. 8, l. 23 –
examples
abus for th
tion,
8, and
ctively
8-22; col.
these
e ordinary
Leapfrog
ding of
epth
p. 9, l. 5)
and
e present

;
Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

6
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(addressing the obviousness of adapting an old idea to newer technology).
Moving the functionality of Reed’s ESU 22 into the CCU 29 would
have also been a common sense modification, particularly because the ESU
22 is operated by the CCU 29. As to the CCU 29, Reed explains:
The CCU 29 directs a communication interface between the
VDB 18 and the various video services offered in the system.
The CCU 29 further provides a telephone interface, including
facsimile capabilities, between the passenger seat and the CTU
30. The CTU 30 provides the telecommunications interface for
the system.
Reed, col. 6, ll. 20-25. As to the ESU 22, Reed explains:
The ESU 22 works in conjunction with portions of the CCU 29
to provide the resource distributions switching for the system.
The CCU 29 requests the ESU 22 to connect a passenger to a
requested entertainment source. The ESU 22 provides local
control of the physical switches resident in the ESU 22.
Id. at col. 7, ll. 50-55. As with the proposed databus modification, we find
the proposed placement of the ESU 22’s functionality within the CCU 29 is
a mere common sense simplification that was within the ordinary skill in the
art in 2006 at the time of Appellant’s filing date.4 See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at
1162.

invention. The comparative skill in the art in 1996 is reflected by Reed’s use
of printed circuit boards. Reed, col. 8, ll. 1-8 and 39-33. Note, however,
that the skill in the art in 1996 is not dispositive of whether the proposed
simplification would have been obvious in 2006.
4 The skill in the art in 2006, including the art’s general understanding of
media switching controls, is reflected by the Specification’s lack of in-depth
examples or explanations of the switching control located within Appellant’s

Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

7
Finally, because the CCU 29/ESU 22 constitutes a user device for
controlling passenger telecom and media systems (Reed, col. 14, ll. 35-64),
it would have been obvious to mount the CCU 29/ESU 22 to a seat used by
flight crew for control (e.g., overriding) of these systems. And, at the very
least, there is nothing unexpected about mounting a user device to a seat in
general. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious.” (citation and quotation omitted)).
Claims 5, 7, and 9
Claims 5, 7, and 9 depend from claim 1 and are directed to: mere
simplifications for data communication (claims 5 and 7); and a mere
duplication of parts (claim 9).
Claim 5 merely adds a second databus including optical fiber. We
take official notice that optical databuses were a well understood alternative
to other signal carriers at the time of Appellants’ invention. See e.g., EP
1176740 A2, “Self powered data communication optical fiber cable
extender” (1995).5 Thus, the substitution of an optical fiber databus for

central device 170 (see e.g., Spec., p. 10, ll. 9-13; p. 11, ll. 3-6); that is,
reflected by Appellants’ implicit belief that such examples and explanations
were not needed to disclose an enabled switching control for the present
invention.
5 Note that we cite this document only as evidence of the skill in the art. We
make no determination of whether it would have been obvious to implement

Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

8
another signal carrier would have been prima facie obvious. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.”)(citation omitted); Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. There is no
evidence before us, on the other hand, that such a substitution would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162 (citation omitted).
Claim 7 merely adds a second wireless databus. We take official
notice that wireless databuses were a well understood alternative to other
signal carriers at the time of Appellants’ invention. See e.g., WO
2003052606 A1, “Wireless data communication bus system” (2003).6 Thus,
the substitution of a wireless databus for another signal carrier of Reed
would have been prima facie obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Leapfrog,
485 F.3d at 1162. There is no evidence before us, on the other hand, that
such a substitution would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162.
Claim 9 merely adds another media unit similar to claim 1’s media
unit. For the reasons presented with respect to the new grounds of rejection
for claim 1, it would have been obvious to mount a second CCU 29/ESU 22
to a seat used by the flight crew. Note also “[i]t is well settled that the mere
duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and

the reference’s particularly disclosed “optical fiber cable extender” within
Reed’s cited embodiment.
6 Note that we cite this document only as evidence of the skill in the art. We
make no determination of whether it would have been obvious to implement
the reference’s particularly disclosed “wireless data communication bus”
within Reed’s cited embodiment.
Appeal 2011-004072
Application 11/556,486

9
unexpected result is produced[.]” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA
1960). No such result has been presented.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-25 is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims
1, 5, 7, and 9 under § 103 as unpatentable over Reed. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall
not be considered final for judicial review” and that Appellants must,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION,
exercise one of the following two options to avoid termination of this appeal
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 § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.

REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B)

llw