Ex Parte Vitito

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2012

10895110 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER VITITO
________________

Appeal 2009-012323
Application 10/895,110
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012323
Application 10/895,110

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 11-13. These claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schedivy (US 2004/0227696 A1;
published Nov. 18, 2004) in view of Chang (US 2004/0083491 A1;
published Apr. 29, 2004) and Yamada (US 2004/0205821 A1; published
Oct. 14, 2004).
We reverse.

CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant describes his invention as follows:
An automobile entertainment system includes a plurality
of video systems, each video system mounted within an
automobile headrest. The headrest includes a headrest body
and a first downwardly extending extension arm having a
passage extending therethrough. The entertainment system also
includes a central switching assembly linking the plurality of
video systems. At least one of the video systems includes an
output transmitting signals to the central switching assembly to
transfer to the remaining video systems. Each video system
also includes an input transmitting signals from the central
switching assembly to the respective video systems.
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An automobile entertainment system, comprising:
a plurality of video systems, each video system mounted
within an automobile headrest, the headrest including a headrest
body and a first downwardly extending extension arm having a
passage extending therethrough;
a central switching assembly linking the plurality of
video systems;
Appeal 2009-012323
Application 10/895,110

3
each of the plurality of video systems includes a video
monitor and a video source, each of the plurality of video
systems also including an output transmitting signals to the the
[sic] central switching assembly to transfer to the remaining
video systems and each of the plurality of video systems
including an input transmitting signals from the central
switching assembly to the respective video systems;
the output of each of the plurality of video systems
includes wiring for power, right and left audio output signals,
and a video output signal which pass through a back of a
vehicle seat and are coupled to the central switching assembly;
and
the input for each of the plurality of video systems
includes wiring for power, right and left audio output signals,
and video output signals which pass through the back of the
vehicle seat and are coupled to the central switching assembly.
The Examiner finds that the monitor wirings, elements 266A-B of
Figure 6 of Chang, are equivalent to the claimed input (Ans. 4; see also
Final Rejection 7, mailed Feb. 7, 2007). Similarly, the Examiner finds that
the wires labeled 276, 292, and 300 by Chang are equivalent to the claimed
output (Ans. 4). Finally, the Examiner finds that the +12V input and +12V
remote out indicate wiring is provided for power input and output,
respectively (Ans. 12 (citing Chang, Fig. 6; ¶ [0023])).
Appellant contends, inter alia, that while the Examiner-cited portions
of Chang do disclose that power is supplied to the video sources, there is “no
explanation as to how power would be provided to the headrest mounted
video monitors” or “a disclosure of all the claimed elements relating to the
power supply” (App. Br. 16).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 because the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of unpatentability. “[T]he
examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
Appeal 2009-012323
Application 10/895,110

4
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
While the Examiner provides evidence that Chang discloses the
supply of power to the video source through the power jacks, the Examiner
has not provided any factual basis to support the further conclusion that the
wiring connected to the +12V input or the +12V remote out would be
coupled to the central connection assembly of Chang, as claimed. For
example, the combined prior art could route the input power directly from
the automobile to the video system, completely bypassing the central
switching assembly.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 11-13 is
reversed.

REVERSED

babc