09590417 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2011)

Ex Parte Tilford

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 6, 2011

09590417 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2011)

UNITED STAlES P A lENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 09/590,417 06/0812000 20991 7590 06107/2011 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PAlENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA! / A 109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Arthur R. Tilford 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. PD-990142 9701 EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/07/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte ARTHUR R. TILFORD _____________ Appeal 2009-010929 Application 09/590,417 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 35 through 68. We reverse. Appeal 2009-010929 Application 09/590,417 2 INVENTION The invention is a system for displaying audio/visual information which makes use of a set top box and a handheld computing device. The handheld computing device receives, stores, and transmits audio/visual information to and from the set top box. The hand held computing device also translates user commands into commands to control the set top box. See pages 4 and 5 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 35 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 35. A system of displaying audio/visual information on an output device using a set top box and a hand held computing device to store the audio/visual information and control the set top box, the system comprising: (a) two or more set top boxes (STBs) for controlling a display of audio/visual information, wherein each STB is configured to: (i) receive broadcast audio/visual information; (ii) transmit audio/visual information to a hand held computing device; (iii) receive audio/visual information from the hand held computing device; (iv) transform the audio/visual information received from the hand held computing device to a form suitable for presentation on an output device; and (v) cause the transformed audio/visual information to be displayed on the output device; (b) the hand held computing device configured to: (i) receive a user command from a user; Appeal 2009-010929 Application 09/590,417 3 (ii) translate the user command into a command signal; (iii) control one or more of the STBs using the command signal; (iv) receive audio/visual information from a first STB; (v) store the received audio/visual information; (vi) transmit the stored audio/visual information to a second STB for display on the output device. REFERENCES Schindler 5,675,390 Oct. 7, 1997 Perlman 6,169,879 B1 Jan. 2, 2001 Huang 6,437,836 B1 Aug. 20, 2002 Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Jornada 430/430se Palm-size PC: User's Guide, pp.7-9, 43-54 (1999) (“HP Jornada”). Business Wire, PocketTV Brings Video to Palm-size PC (Mar. 9, 2000), retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine, http://web.archive.org/web/20000816034339/www.palmsizepc.com/m ar2000-14-1.html (Apr. 16, 2003) (“PocketTV”). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 35 through 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 5 through 13 of the Answer.1 1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated January 27, 2009. Appeal 2009-010929 Application 09/590,417 4 The Examiner has rejected claims 35 through 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schindler in view of PocketTV and Huang. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 13 through 21 of the Answer. ISSUE Rejection based upon Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang Appellant argues, on pages 9 through 20 of the Brief and pages 10 through 24 of the Reply Brief2, the Examiner’s rejection based upon Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang is in error. Appellant’s arguments present us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang teaches a handheld computing device used to control the set top box as well as receive, store, and transmit audio/visual information to the set top box. Rejection based upon Schindler in view of PocketTV and Huang Appellant argues, on pages 27 through 32 of the Brief and pages 34 through 37 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejection based upon Schindler in view of PocketTV and Huang is in error. Appellant’s arguments present us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Schindler in view of PocketTV and Huang teaches a handheld computing device used to control the set top box as well as receive, store, and transmit audio/visual information to the set top box. 2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated October 29, 2008, and Reply Brief dated March 27, 2009. Appeal 2009-010929 Application 09/590,417 5 ANALYSIS Rejection based upon Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs and we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the combination of the references does not teach a handheld computing device used to control the set top box as well as receive, store, and transmit audio/visual information to the set top box. The Examiner relies upon the disclosure of PocketTV becoming a miniature VCR and Perlman’s teaching of connecting a set top box to a VCR as suggesting that the PocketTV handheld device would transmit audio/video information back to the set-top box for display. Answer 32. While we concur that Perlman teaches a VCR and PocketTV equates the device to a miniature VCR, we do not find that the evidence supports a finding that PocketTV allows for the audiovisual information to be transmitted to the set- top box for display. Further, while we recognize that the Examiner has presented documentation of HP Jornada to show that hand held computing devices can transfer files, we do not find this teaches that the handheld device would transmit audio/video information back to the set-top box for display. Answer 33. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 35 through 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang. Rejection Schindler in view of PocketTV and Huang We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs and we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the combination of the references does not teach a handheld computing device used to control the set top box as well as receive, store, and transmit audio/visual information to the set top box. As Appeal 2009-010929 Application 09/590,417 6 with the rejection based upon Perlman in view of PocketTV and Huang, the Examiner relies upon PocketTV to teach the claimed handheld device. As discussed supra, we do not find that the evidence supports the finding. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 35 through 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schindler in view of PocketTV and Huang. CONCLUSION Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 35 through 68. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 35 through 68 is reversed. REVERSED msc