10156009 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2008)

Ex Parte Tsubouchi

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 7, 2008

10156009 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte AKINORI TSUBOUCHI ____________ Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: July 7, 2008 ____________ Before KENNETH A. HAIRSTON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is a digital broadcasting system capable of making channel selection without making a user conscious of the difference between a physical channel number and a virtual channel number (Abstract). If an effective transmission signal from an initial channel selection processing mode (physical channel number) is not confirmed, the entered channel number is considered in the other mode (in this case) virtual channel number (Spec. ¶¶[0024-0025]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only claim on appeal. 1. A digital broadcasting receiver for receiving digital broadcasting signals, the digital broadcasting receiver being operative to alternate between a first mode and a second mode for making a channel selection of digital processing, wherein, under the first mode, the channel selection of digital broadcasting is made according to a physical channel number in which a frequency is assigned to a channel in accordance with a rule, said physical channel referencing a frequency band where television signals are embedded for transmission; wherein, under the second mode, the channel selection of digital broadcasting is made according to a virtual channel number in which a frequency corresponds to a channel on the side of the receiver, said virtual channel recognized on the side of the receiver as the single entity that will provide access to one or more digital elementary streams, and wherein either the first mode or the second mode is used as a basis to attempt to make the channel selection of digital broadcasting, considering the entered channel number as the virtual channel number when an effective transmission signal is not detected in the channel selection by the first mode on the basis of the entered channel number, while making an attempt to make channel selection of digital broadcasting, considering the entered channel number as a physical 2 Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 channel number when information for selecting a channel is not stored in the channel selection of digital broadcasting by the second mode on the basis of the entered channel number. REFERENCES Wasilewski US 5,600,378 Feb. 4, 1997 The Examiner rejected claim 1under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Wasilewski. Appellant contends that Wasilewski does not anticipate claim 1 (Br. 11; Reply Br. 2) ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Wasilewski under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” While all elements of the claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references may be used to interpret the 3 Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 anticipating reference and to shed light on its meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727 (Fed. Cir. 1984). ANALYSIS The Examiner contends that Wasilewski teaches every element found in claim 1. The Examiner states that Wasilewski teaches a digital broadcasting receiver (Fig. 1 and decoder 10 that receives MPEG-2 digital broadcasting signals at tuner 12) (Ans. 3), the digital broadcasting receiver being operative to alternate between a first and second mode (Fig. 2-direct logical channel selection and Fig. 3-composite channel selection) (Ans. 4), and making a channel selection (col. 6, ll. 23-25) (Ans. 4). The Examiner further contends that Wasilewski also discloses under the first mode, the channel selection is made according to a physical channel number where a frequency is assigned to a channel (Fig. 2; col. 9, ll. 21-53) in accordance with a rule (col. 9, ll. 23-28) (Ans. 4) and the physical channel referencing a frequency band where television signals are embedded for transmission (Fig. 2) (Ans. 4). Further, Wasilewski teaches under the second mode the channel selection is made according to a virtual channel number (Fig. 3; col. 9, l. 54- col. 10, l. 57) (Ans. 4) in which a frequency corresponds to a channel on the side of the receiver and the virtual channel is recognized on the side of the receiver (Fig. 3) (Ans. 4) as the single entity that provides access to one or more digital elementary streams (Fig. 3) (Ans. 4). Finally, Wasilewski discloses that if either the first or second mode is used as a basis to make the channel selection (col. 5, ll. 42-45—CCI is equal to 1 or 0) (Ans. 5), considering the entered channel number as the virtual channel number when 4 Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 an effective transmission signal is not detected in the channel selection by the first mode on the basis of the entered channel number, while making an attempt to make channel selection (Fig. 3) (Ans. 5), considering the entered channel number as a physical channel number when information for selecting a channel is not stored in the channel selection by the second mode on the basis of the entered channel number (Fig. 2—CCI is equal to 0) (Ans. 5). Appellant asserts that the Examiner is incorrect because Wasilewski merely “discloses a simple mode-selection method based on the CCI flag bit (0 or 1)” (Reply Br. 5). In Wasilewski, the user selects either a direct channel (the CCI flag is a one) or a program (the CCI flag is a zero) (col. 6, ll. 23-25). That is, Wasilewski does not teach “either the first mode or the second mode is used as a basis to attempt to make the channel selection” as recited in claim 1. That is, in Appellant’s invention, the attempt is made considering the entered channel number as the virtual channel number (cl. 1; Fig. 4) when an effective transmission signal is not detected by the first mode on the basis of the entered channel number, while making an attempt to make channel selection considering the entered channel number as a physical channel number when information for selecting a channel is not stored in the channel selection by the second mode on the basis of the entered channel number (cl. 1; Fig. 3). Additionally, the receiver is “operative to alternate between the first mode and second mode for making channel selection” (cl. 1). Appellant argues that the above claim elements, when read in light of the Specification, are construed to mean that if either the first or second mode is selected, but the channel selection cannot be made by the channel number in the selected mode, the attempt at channel 5 Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 selection in the other mode occurs automatically (Spec. ¶[0005]; Reply Br. 3). Thus, “Wasilewski never considers the entered channel number as the composite number if the direct logical channel tuning mode is selected (CCI=0) and never considers the entered channel number as the direct logical channel number if the composite channel tuning mode is selected (CCI=1).” (Reply Br. 5). That is, Wasilewski does not teach attempting to make a channel selection in another mode when the channel selection in a selected mode cannot be performed. We agree with Appellant that Wasilewski does not teach this feature. Because Wasilewski does not teach every feature of claim 1, Wasilewski does not anticipate claim 1. CONCLUSION We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 1 is reversed. 6 Appeal 2008-0111 Application 10/156,009 REVERSED eld WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP 1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW SUITE 700 WASHINGTON DC 20036 7