10951826 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

Ex Parte Vance

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 12, 2013

10951826 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/951,826 09/28/2004 Scott L. Vance 2002-097 3278 54472 7590 09/13/2013 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC 27518 EXAMINER OKEKE, ONYEDIKA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SCOTT L. VANCE ____________ Appeal 2011-003990 Application 10/951,826 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15-24, 27-37, and 39-48. Claims 3, 4, 14, 25, 26, and 38 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention generally relates to rendering an audio signal over a wireless communication device where a video signal associated with Appeal 2011-003990 Application 10/951,826 2 the audio signal is being output to one or more displays in an audio-video system. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A wireless communication device for use in an audio video network comprising: a controller to establish a long-range cellular communications link with an audio-video system via a base station subsystem in a wireless communication network when the wireless communication device is positioned proximate a display in the audio-video system; a transceiver to communicate with one or more remote parties via the wireless communication network, and to receive an audio signal from the audio-video system over the established cellular communications link, the audio signal being synchronized with a video signal being output to the display by the audio-video system; and an audio processing circuit to render the received audio signal as audible sound to a user of the wireless communication device. REFERENCES Lutterbach US 5,510,828 Apr. 23, 1996 Atkinson US 2001/0054180 A1 Dec. 20, 2001 Avnet US 2002/0094787 A1 July 18, 2002 Fraccaroli US 6,549,768 B1 Apr. 15, 2003 Zigmond US 6,698,020 B1 Feb. 24, 2004 Minborg US 6,977,909 B2 Dec. 20, 2005 (filed July 18, 2001) Griffiths US 7,136,999 B1 Nov. 14, 2006 (filed June 20, 2000) Appeal 2011-003990 Application 10/951,826 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, 11-13, 23, 24, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avnet and Atkinson. Ans. 3-6. 2. Claims 5, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, 27-30, and 40-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avnet, Atkinson, and Zigmond. Ans. 6-8. 3. Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avnet, Atkinson, Zigmond, and Fraccaroli. Ans. 8. 4. Claims 9, 15, 31, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avnet, Atkinson, and Griffiths. Ans. 9. 5. Claims 10, 22, 32, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avnet, Atkinson, and Minborg. Ans. 9-10. 6. Claims 20, 21, 33-35, and 46-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avnet, Atkinson, and Lutterbach. Ans. 10-12. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AVNET AND ATKINSON The Examiner finds that Avnet teaches every recited element of claim 1 except for “the audio signal being synchronized with a video signal being output to the display by the audio-video system,” but cites Atkinson as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-5. Appellant argues, inter alia, that Avnet does not teach or suggest the recited “cellular communications link.” App. Br. 6-16. Appeal 2011-003990 Application 10/951,826 4 Issue Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Avnet would have taught or suggested a “cellular communications links,” as recited in claim 1? Analysis This appeal turns on whether the communications link taught by Avnet is a “cellular” communications link. The Examiner relies upon Figure 1 and paragraphs 0006, 0023, and 0024 of Avnet to teach the “cellular communications link.” Ans. 4. Paragraph 0006 of Avnet teaches that: [t]he transceiver can communicate wirelessly over a short distance, usually tens of meters. It may use infrared signals, or any of a number of digital RF-based technologies such as Bluetooth, Jini, WAP, etc. Avnet ¶ 0006. We agree with Appellant’s argument that this portion of Avnet teaches that data is transmitted from the Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB) to a user’s device via an ad-hoc short-range communications link, not the recited “cellular communications link.” App. Br. 8-10. The Examiner contends that Avnet’s disclosure of “WAP” (Wireless Application Protocol) teaches a “cellular” communications link because “[i]t is notoriously [well] known that the WAP protocol is not a ‘short-range’ mechanism.” Ans. 13- 15. However, the Examiner provides no support for this finding. We disagree that Avnet’s disclosure of “WAP” necessarily implies “cellular.” As Appellant correctly points out, “WAP” is listed amongst other short- range wireless standards—Bluetooth and Jini—as one example of a digital RF-based technology that Avnet’s transceiver can use to “communicate wirelessly over a short distance, usually tens of meters.” App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 3-5 (citing Avnet ¶ 0006) (emphasis added). By listing “WAP” as Appeal 2011-003990 Application 10/951,826 5 it does, Avnet suggests that WAP is to be used as, or in conjunction with, a short-range wireless technology. Paragraphs 0023 and 0024 provide no additional support for the Examiner’s finding. As a result, we are persuaded that the Examiner incorrectly determined that Avnet teaches the recited “cellular communications link.” See App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 3-5. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 12, 23, and 36 which recite commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2, 11, 13, 24, and 37. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AVNET, ATKINSON, AND ZIGMOND Because the Examiner has not shown that Zigmond cures the deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, 27-30, and 40-43. Ans. 6-8. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AVNET, ATKINSON, ZIGMOND, AND FRACCAROLI Because the Examiner has not shown that Fraccaroli cures the deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 6 and 17. Ans. 8. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AVNET, ATKINSON, AND GRIFFITHS Because the Examiner has not shown that Griffiths cures the deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 9, 15, 31, and 39. Ans. 9. Appeal 2011-003990 Application 10/951,826 6 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AVNET, ATKINSON, AND MINBORG Because the Examiner has not shown that Minborg cures the deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 10, 22, 32, and 44. Ans. 9-10. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AVNET, ATKINSON, AND LUTTERBACH Because the Examiner has not shown that Lutterbach cures the deficiencies noted above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 20, 21, 33-35, and 45-48. Ans. 10-12. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15-24, 27-37, and 39-48 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15-24, 27-37, and 39-48 is REVERSED. REVERSED rwk