Ex Parte Onomatsu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2012

10830345 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TAKEHIRO ONOMATSU
____________

Appeal 2010-002663
Application 10/830,345
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002663
Application 10/830,345

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to remote controller keys 16
and 17 that when pressed, “channel map 31 can be referenced to sequentially
switch and select digital content to be output to monitor device 12” (Spec.
9:5-7).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
l. A digital broadcast reception apparatus comprising:

a broadcast receiver receiving a digital broadcast signal;

a recording medium having content previously recorded
therein;

a content reader reading said content from said recording
medium;

a switch operated to switch content to be output to a
previously prepared monitor; and

a controller controlling switching content to be output,
sequentially switching and selecting from a group of contents
content to be output to said monitor whenever said switch is
operated, said group of contents at least including content
broadcast through each of at least one channel allowing said
broadcast receiver to receive a corresponding said digital
broadcast signal, and content recorded in said recording
medium;
Appeal 2010-002663
Application 10/830,345

3
wherein the controlling, switching, and selecting is
communicated to the digital broadcast reception apparatus by
an up key and a down key disposed on the controller.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
based upon the teachings of Takahisa (Japanese Patent Application
Publication Number 2000-287179 (filed March 30, 1999)).
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) based upon
the teachings of Takahisa and Wakahara (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2003/0231864 A1 (filed April 15, 2003)).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Takahisa
teaches the limitation of “wherein the controlling, switching, and selecting is
communicated to the digital broadcast reception apparatus by an up key and
a down key disposed on the controller” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added).

ANALYSIS
Analysis with respect to claims 1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
Appellant argues that Takahisa does not teach selecting a program
with an up and a down key as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8).
We agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with Appellant (App.
Br. 8) that Takahisa teaches an enter key 835 for executing or selecting the
program (¶[0022]). Takahisa teaches navigating the Electronic Program
Guide (EPG) using the up, down, left, and right keys, and then selecting the
Appeal 2010-002663
Application 10/830,345

4
program with the enter key 835 (¶[0022]). Accordingly, Takahisa does not
teach the selection of the program being communicated by an up key and a
down key as recited in claim 1, but rather, by an enter key.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and for the same reason the rejection of independent claim 11. We
also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2-9.
Analysis with respect to claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 because
Wakahara fails to cure the above cited deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Takahisa teaches the limitation of
“wherein the controlling, switching, and selecting is communicated to the
digital broadcast reception apparatus by an up key and a down key disposed
on the controller” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw