Ex Parte Shintani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 201612970215 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/970,215 12/16/2010 Peter Shintani 36738 7590 03/02/2016 ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES 750B STREET SUITE 3120 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 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. 201003607.02 5691 EXAMINER THOMAS, JASON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): Noelle@rogitz.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com J ohn@rogitz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER SHINTANI, ARAN SADJA, THEODORE R. BOOTH, and LUDOVIC DOUILLET Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/970,215 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claim 9 is canceled. App. Br. 13. We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 19, 2013 ("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed September 11, 2013 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed August 30, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2013 ("Final Act."). 2 Appellants identify Sony Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 8 is reproduced below: 8. Audio video (AV) assembly comprising: a terrestrial broadcast advanced television systems committee (ATSC) demodulator assembly deactivated prior to purchasing a license for the ATSC demodulator assembly; a processor m the AV assembly configured for determining whether a physical condition exists in the AV assembly; the processor, responsive to determining that the physical condition exists, configured for automatically activating the ATSC demodulator assembly and otherwise not activating the ATSC demodulator assembly, the activating including communicating a request that results in a transaction related to the ATSC assembly to a licensing entity, wherein responsive to a determination that the physical condition exists, the processor is configured to: activate a national television systems committee (NTSC) demodulator assembly to process AV signals, determine whether energy in a non-NTSC portion of the spectrum exists in the AV signals, and responsive to a determination that energy in a non- NTSC portion of the spectrum does not exist in the AV signals, maintain the ATSC demodulator assembly deactivated and not request a license for the ATSC demodulator assembly, processing the TV signals using the NTSC demodulator for presentation of the AV signals on a display. 2 Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 Edde et al. ("Edde") Chang Fan et al. ("Fan") Houng et al. ("Houng") References US 2006/0146200 Al US 2006/0221254 Al US 2008/0250443 Al US 2011/0166968 Al Examiner's Rejections July 6, 2006 Oct. 5, 2006 Oct. 9, 2008 July 7, 2011 Claims 8, 10, and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Houng. Final Act. 6-11. Claims 1---6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Houng and Edde. Final Act. 11-14. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Houng, Fan, and Edde. Final Act. 14--15. ANALYSIS Claim 8 Appellants contend Houng neither discloses nor enables a national television systems committee (NTSC) demodulator assembly to ... determine whether energy in a non-NTSC portion of the spectrum exists in the AV signals, and responsive to a determination that energy in a non-NTSC portion of the spectrum does not exist in the AV signals, maintain the A TSC demodulator assembly deactivated ... processing the TV signals using the NTSC demodulator for presentation of the AV signals on a display, as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-3. Specifically, Appellants argue that Houng does not disclose a test to determine whether energy in the non-NTSC portion of the spectrum exists. App. Br. 6. Appellants further assert that this test is not inherent in Houng based on deciding whether to activate an ATSC tuner because "[d]eciding whether to activate an ATSC 3 Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 tuner can implicate an endless number of conditions for doing so, from mere whim to contractual imperatives to the price of ATSC tuners in China." Reply Br. 2. These arguments are not persuasive of error. We note that the recited "test" in claim 8 - "determin[ing] whether energy in a non-NTSC portion of the spectrum exists in the AV signals" - is not used to activate an ATSC tuner, as suggested by Appellants' arguments. Rather, the test is used to "maintain the ATSC demodulator assembly deactivated." Because claim 8 recites that the "demodulator assembly [is] deactivated prior to purchasing a license for the ATSC demodulator assembly," the claimed determination requires no action to be taken with respect to the A TSC tuner. Regardless, as found by the Examiner, Houng discloses activating an ATSC decoder if it is needed, such as when an ATSC signal, which is a "non-NTSC" signal, is detected. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Houng i-fi-1 57, 60, 62, 64---65, 67); see Houng i160: The ATSC tuner 46 in the display device 14 is only used to process and decode certain kinds of signals . . . . Since operation of the ATSC tuner 46 may require payment of certain licensing or other fees, it would be advantageous not to activate the A TSC tuner 46 in those situations where it would not be used. And, consistent with claim 8, Houng discloses that the ATSC tuner is initially deactivated. Houng i1 58. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Houng's disclosure of QAM reads on NTSC, and Appellants argue Houng does not disclose processing NTSC signals. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 1. On the first point, we agree with Appellants because, as Appellants rightly note, Houng discloses that QAM is digital, not an analog standard like NTSC. App. Br. 6 4 Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 (citing Houng if 61 ); see also Houng if 55 ("QAM stands for quadrature amplitude modulation, the format used by cable television providers to encode and transmit digital cable channels"). However, this error is not fatal to the Examiner's rejection because the Examiner also relies on Chang, which is incorporated by reference in Houng, for disclosing "detect[ing] an NTSC or other signal." Ans. 3--4 ( citing Houng if 66, Chang if 31 ). Houng states: The process of the display device 14 being able to recognize and interpret signals from newly-connected signal sources is described in greater detail in co-owned patent application publications US 2006/0221254 Al [(Chang)] and WO 2007 /112188 A2, the specifications and figures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. Houng if 66. Chang discloses "sensing circuits" that "not only determine new input sources, but also a lack of activity on current sources." Chang if 31 (emphasis added). Chang describes making such determinations with respect to NTSC signals. Chang iii! 27, 31. Thus, the Examiner additionally relies on Chang's description incorporated by reference in Houng of sensing circuits recognizing signals to disclose "determin[ing] whether energy in a non-NTSC portion of the spectrum exists in the AV signals," as recited in claim 8. Ans. 3--4 (citing Houng if 66, Chang if 31 ). In response to the Examiner's explanation with respect to Chang, Appellants state: The conferees next rely on two documents purportedly incorporated into Houng that teach, per the conferees, recognizing and interpreting newly-connected signal sources. It does not matter whether this is true since the statement is irrelevant to the claimed test. Appellant[ s] ha[ ve] no idea, and does not expect the Board to fare any better, as to what the conferees are thinking. 5 Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 Reply. Br. 2. This statement does not address the Examiner's findings, in which the Examiner particularly noted Chang's teachings with respect to NTSC signals. Ans. 3--4. Because these findings are unrebutted, we are not persuaded of error. Because we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 8, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. Appellants do not present additional persuasive arguments regarding dependent claims 10 and 12-16 which depend from claim 8, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims. Claim 17 Unlike claim 8, which is directed to not activating an ATSC demodulator, claim 17 requires activating a NTSC demodulator, a QAM decoder/demodulator and an ATSC decoder/demodulator in a particular order. In particular, claim 17 requires a processor configured for, "responsive to a determination that a physical condition exists, activating an NTSC demodulator; determining whether a signal at the NTSC tuner an NTSC signal; ... responsive to a determination that signals other than NTSC signals are present, activating a QAM decoder/demodulator" and "responsive to a determination that the QAM decoder/demodulator does not recognize a signal, activating an ATSC decoder/ demodulator." Claim 17 requires the QAM decoder/demodulator to be activated before the determination that the QAM decoder/demodulator recognizes a signal is made before activating the ATSC decoder/demodulator. Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown Houng discloses these limitations. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3. We agree. Although the Examiner correctly notes Houng discloses activating certain display device features if 6 Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 those features are needed (Ans. 5-7), the Examiner has not shown Houng discloses activating the NTSC demodulator, the QAM decoder/demodulator, and ATSC decoder/demodulator in the order recited in claim 17. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach appellants' remaining arguments. Thus, we are constrained by the record not to sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 17, as well as the anticipation rejections of claims 18-20, which depend from clam 1 7. Claim 1 With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Houng's disclosure of QAM reads on NTSC and that it "is clear error that Houng teaches anything at all about activating an NTSC receiver." App. Br. 8. As noted above, we agree on the first point that QAM in Houng is digital, not analog as is NTSC. However, in response to the second point, the Examiner explained that Houng specifically mentions NTSC as a known standard. Ans. 7. The Examiner found that "Houng makes it clear in paragraph 59 that while the ATSC standard has replaced much of the once predominantly used analog NTSC standard, the NTSC standard is still used." Final Act. 4. Houng teaches that "display device 14 may be any of a variety of types of devices for displaying information, for example including televisions, digital televisions (DTV s) ... " Houng i1 48 (cited at Ans. 3). This suggests that a "television," as opposed to a "digital television," is analog, and the NTSC standard was a known and used analog standard, as found by the Examiner. Thus, we find the evidence supports the Examiner's findings that Houng teaches or suggests using an NTSC receiver when there is such a signal. 7 Appeal2013-011029 Application 12/97 0,215 Appellants further contend Edde does not teach "determining whether a voltage exists in an automatic gain adjust (AGC) component of TV signal receiving assembly," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue Edde does not use the AGC signal for the test claimed. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert Edde solely uses the AGC signal "to send the gain control to ATSC processing circuitry." App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds Edde teaches that "a TV signal must pass through a[ n] AGC to evaluate and correct the voltage levels of the TV signal." Final Act. 12 (citing Edde i-f 26) ("AGC 110 provides a gain controlled signal 113 to ATSC VSB processing circuitry ... and to BPF 115"). We agree with the Examiner that the voltage signal in the AGC is determined to exist, evaluated, processed, controlled, and corrected in Edde. Final Act. 12; Ans. 8-9. In light of these findings, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 8. Appellants do not present additional persuasive arguments regarding dependent claims 2-7 and 11, and, therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections of these claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-16; however, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-20. 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-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation