Ex Parte Nguyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12509376 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/509,376 0712412009 Phuc H. Nguyen
70336 7590 04/29/2016
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH A VENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
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.
P2009-04-24 (290110.436) 9838
EXAMINER
CONTINO SAUMBY, KRISTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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 PHUC H. NGUYEN
Appeal2014-009172
Application 12/509,376
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009172
Application 12/509,376
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant's Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention is a method and system for more easily
determining signal strength of a signal received through an antenna by a set-
top box using a handheld computing device with a signal strength indicator
(Figs. 1 and 2; Spec. i-fi-f l--4; claims 1, 6, and 13; Abs.).
Exemplary Claim
Sole independent claim 1 under appeal is exemplary, and reads as
follows:
1. A system, compnsmg:
a set-top box that is communicatively coupled to an
antenna;
a display that is communicatively coupled to the set-top
box; and
a handheld computing device having a signal strength
indicator, the device being in a housing separate from the set-
top box and the display and wirelessly communicatively
coupled to the set-top box;
wherein the set-top box is configured to:
determine a signal strength of a program signal received by the
antenna based at least on a measured power level of the
received program signal; and
wirelessly transmit information including a numeric
representation of the determined signal strength of the program
signal to the handheld computing device; and
2
Appeal2014-009172
Application 12/509,376
wherein the handheld computing device is configured to:
wirelessly receive the transmitted information including the
numeric representation of the determined signal strength of the
program signal; and
present, on the signal strength indicator, an indication of
the signal strength of the program signal, the presented
indication based on the received information.
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-14, and 17-21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jutzi (US 7,275,254 Bl; issued
Sept. 25, 2007), McEnroe (US 2007 /0079345 Al; published Apr. 5, 2007),
Onomatsu et al. (US 7,697,078 B2; Apr. 13, 2010); and Casey (US
20061018497 5 A 1; published Aug. 1 7, 2006). 1 Final Act. 2-6; Ans. 2---6 and
8-12.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 15, and 16 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jutzi, McEnroe, Onomatsu, Casey, and Shimp
et al. (US 8,143,900 B2; used Mar. 27, 2012).2 Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 6-7.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 12, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jutzi, McEnroe, Onomatsu, Casey, and Del
1 Appellant presents separate arguments primarily as to independent claim 1
(see App. Br. 13-15), makes similar arguments for remaining independent
claims 6 and 13 which contain similar subject matter (App. Br. 15-16), and
does not present any separate arguments as to dependent claims 2--4, 7-12,
14, and 17-21. Instead, Appellant relies upon the arguments presented as to
independent claims 1, 6, and 13 for the patentability of dependent claims 2-
4, 7-12, 14, and 17-21 (App. Br. 15-16). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims rejected over the combination of Jutzi,
McEnroe, Onomatsu, and Casey (claims 1--4, 6-14, and 17-21 ).
2 Appellant does not present any separate arguments as to dependent claims
5, 15, and 16, and instead relies upon the arguments presented as to claims 1
and 13 for the patentability of claims 5, 15, and 16 (App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
15 and 19).
3
Appeal2014-009172
Application 12/509,376
Sordo (US 2010/0154009 Al; published June 17, 2010). 3 (Final Act. 7-8;
Ans. 7-8.)
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments in the briefs (App. Br. 11-16; Reply
Br. 16-19), the following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-21 as being unpatentable
over the base combination of Jutzi, McEnroe, Onomatsu, and Casey because
McEnroe is limited to text messaging and therefore fails to teach or suggest
transmitting a signal strength data from a set-top box to a handheld
computing device, as recited in representative independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-8; Ans. 2-
8) in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-16)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 16-19) that the Examiner has erred, as well
as the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments in the Answer (Ans. 8-
12). We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. With regard to
representative claim 1, we adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
3 Appellant does not present any separate arguments as to dependent claims
12, 19, and 20, and instead relies upon the arguments presented as to claims
6 and 13 for the patentability of claims 12, 19, and 20 (App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 15 and 19). We note the Examiner mistakenly states that claims 12, 19,
and 20 are rejected over Jutzi, McEnroe, and Casey "as applied to claims 1,
6, and 13 above, and further in view of [ ... Del Sordo]" (Ans. 8). We
consider this harmless error, and treat the rejection of claims 12, 19, and 20
as including Onomatsu in the combination since Onomatsu was applied
against claims 1, 6, and 13.
4
Appeal2014-009172
Application 12/509,376
Act. 2-5 and Ans. 2-5 as to claim 1 ), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 8-12) in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner,
and we provide the following for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-5 and 8-12) that
the individual references disclose the subject matter of claim 1 relied upon in
the rejection, and that the combination of references would have been
properly motivated by one of ordinary skill in the art (Jutzi - antenna
configuration for a set-top box; Onomatsu - measuring signal strength of a
received broadcast wave; McEnroe - wirelessly transmitting set-top box
information to a cellular telephone or handheld computing device; Casey - a
signal strength indicator).
Appellant's arguments presented as to an individual reference, in the
instant case McEnroe (see App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 17-18), are not
persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner relies on a properly made combination
of Jutzi, McEnroe, Onomatsu, and Casey to support the conclusion of
obviousness of the subject matter of representative independent claim 1.
Appellant has not rebutted or otherwise shown the Examiner's explanation
of the combination of the collective teachings and suggestions of the applied
references (see Ans. 2-5 and 8-12) made in response to the Appellant's
arguments in the briefs (regarding McEnroe individually) to be in error.
With regard to Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 14 and 16; Reply Br.
18-19) that the Examiner employed impermissible hindsight in making the
combination, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. In looking to modify
the set-top box and antenna configuration of Jutzi, the Examiner reasonably
looked to the signal strength measuring device of Onomatsu, the set-top box
5
Appeal2014-009172
Application 12/509,376
with wireless transmission of McEnroe, and the signal strength indicator of
Casey. Each of the references to McEnroe, Onomatsu, and Casey provide
predictable results and advantages to the set-top box system of Jutzi and
would have been obvious expedients. Appellant has not shown otherwise.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2--4, 6-14, and 17-21
grouped therewith. For similar reasons as provided for claim 1 supra, and
because Appellant has not argued separately claims 5, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20,
we also sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5, 12, 15, 16,
19, and 20 which rely upon the same base combination of Jutzi, McEnroe,
Onomatsu, and Casey as relied upon in the rejection of representative
independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the base combination of Jutzi,
McEnroe, Onomatsu, and Casey.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6