Ex Parte Vinson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

11588601 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID C. VINSON, THOMAS J. ZATO,
RICHARD CHI-TE SHEN, and LEONARD TSAI
____________

Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an audio/video (A/V) component
networking system and method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. An audio/video (A/V) component networking
system, comprising:

a presentation device configured to present A/V program
data to a user;

a sink component communicatively coupled to the
presentation device and configured to control presentation of
A/V program data on the presentation device, the A/V program
data received from a source component communicatively
coupled to the presentation device; and

a sink interface disposed in the presentation device and
configured to receive an input command from an input device
and determine whether to direct the input command to either the
sink component for processing as a command for the source
component or the presentation device for processing as a
command for the presentation device.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sampsell US 6,219,839 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601

3

Tajima

Takada

US 2003/0177244 A1

US 7,284,259 B1

Sept. 18, 2003

Oct. 16, 2007
(filed Nov. 7, 2000)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sampsell and Takada.
Claims 6, 7, 10-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sampsell, Takada, and Tajima.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 18
Appellants’ contentions regarding independent claim 1 focus on
Takada:
Neither first controller node 53 of the Takeda [sic] reference
nor second controller node 60 of the Takeda [sic] reference,
however, are disposed in “a presentation device” (configured to
present A/V program data to a user), and neither first controller
node 53 of the Takeda [sic] reference nor second controller
node 60 of the Takeda [sic] reference are configured to
determine whether to direct “an input command” to either (a) “a
sink component” (communicatively coupled to the presentation
device and configured to control presentation of A/V program
data on the presentation device) for processing as a command
for “a source component” (as a provider of the A/V program
data) or (b) the presentation device for processing as a
command for the presentation device.
(App. Br. 13-14).
However, the Examiner finds Sampsell, not Takada, either discloses
or would have suggested all of the argued features (see Ans. 3-4, 9-10).
Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601

4
Sampsell discloses a system 10 that includes “an audio/video (AN) [sic]
devise, such as TV receiver 12, that contains an electronic resources guide
generator to generate an electronic resource guide (ERG) and an electronic
program guide (EPG) therein, each of which may be presented as an on
screen display (OSD).” (Sampsell, col. 4, ll. 6-10). Based on this
description, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 10) and find that
Sampsell discloses a “sink interface” (the “ERG”) disposed in a
“presentation device” (the “OSD”) coupled to a “sink component” (the “TV
receiver”) as claimed.
Further, Sampsell discloses:
In some instances, the network and the ERG may be used to
change the mode of an appliance, i.e., an appliance may be
turned on by a command given by, for instance, receiver 12,
which in the first instance, receives a command from the user,
or from a programming module, which instructs a peripheral to
become active at a predetermined time.
(Sampsell, col. 4, ll. 37-43).
FIG. 10 depicts how ERG 70 structure may be used to
control networked appliances, such as DVD 20. The ERG
provides a display of a small version of the full-screen grid, at
the bottom of the display of receiver 12, for instance. . . .
This provides the user with full access to all networked
resources. The user may use the display and remote control of
receiver 12 to route a signal from a source, such as DBS 24 or
DVD 20, to a destination, such as VCR 14 or to a writable
DVD. The user may control what happens at the destination
appliance, and then return to viewing a program broadcast over
internet 26 on receiver 12.
(Sampsell, col. 7, ll. 23-45).
The ERG, and associated EPG, displays program, channel and
time information in an X/Y grid, as shown in FIG. 3, at 60.
Channel, or station, identifiers appear in a left, source column,
Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601

5
62, time appears in a top, time row, 64, and programming
information appears in the body of the grid, 66.
A UI provides a way for the user to move a cursor
through the various channels and times so that the user can
view the program choices available on any given channel at any
given time. The UI typically provides a simple method to tune
the receiver to the channel associated with the cursor location if
the associated time coincides with the actual time. . . .
In the ERG of the invention, a portion of which is shown
in FIG. 4, generally at 70, the channel list also includes other
sources of programming on the network. The other sources
may be selected in the same manner used for “tunable”
channels, and will appear in a source column, 72, arranged in an
X/Y grid with a time row 74. As a peripheral is activated, any
programming information from that peripheral is included in
the ERG, which is updated as the peripheral comes on line.

(Sampsell, col. 5, ll. 5-29). As quoted here, Sampsell’s ERG (the “sink
component”) allows a user to (1) control at least one remote appliance (the
“source component”) via the TV receiver and the network, and (2) browse
the display of the ERG presented on the OSD (the “presentation device”).
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4, 10) by
explaining why the above quoted portions of Sampsell do not disclose or
would not have suggested Sampsell’s ERG is “configured to receive an input
command from an input device and determine whether to direct the input
command to either the sink component for processing as a command for the
source component or the presentation device for processing as a command
for the presentation device,” as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 11-15; Reply
Br. 2-4). Rather, as mentioned above, Appellants’ arguments focus solely
on Takada’s disclosure (see id.).
We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-5, 8, 9, and 18 not separately argued.
Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601

6
Claims 6, 7, 10-17, and 19
The Examiner finds Tajima discloses, specifically, in paragraphs 29-
31, 54-57, 61-75, and 98, the claim 6 limitation of “a reset module
configured to . . . automatically cause a reset of the sink component if the
sink component becomes non-operational” (Ans. 7, 15-16). However, after
reviewing the cited disclosure, we agree with Appellants’ argument (see
App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4-5) that Tajima only discloses resetting a bus and
not a sink component. The Examiner has not specifically shown Tajima
discloses or would have suggested resetting a device itself, such as the
claimed sink component, as opposed to resetting the bus that connects to the
device.
We are therefore constrained by the record and find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 6 which depends from claim 1, independent claims
11 and 16 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 7,
10, 12-15, 17, and 19 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 7,
10-17, and 19, but did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 18.

DECISION
For the foregoing reasons:
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 10-17, and 19;
and
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 18.
Appeal 2010-012443
Application 11/588,601

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw