Ex Parte Shintani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12970215 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

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