Ex Parte Vitito

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2011

10920430 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. VITITO
_____________

Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s Figure 9e is reproduced below:

Appellant’s Figure 9e and claimed invention are directed to an
automobile entertainment system having a broadcast television receiver 19
integrated with the headrest 14. The television receiver 19 is provided with
a substantially u-shaped antenna 21. (See Fig. 9e; Spec. 9:13-22).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430

3
1. An automobile entertainment system, comprising:
a video system mounted within an automobile headrest, the headrest
including a headrest body in which the video system is mounted;
the video system including an integrated housing supporting a video
monitor and a television receiver, wherein the housing includes a support
frame including a rectangular shell in which the video monitor is pivotally
mounted, the housing further including a rear recess in which the television
receiver is mounted for wiring to the video monitor; and
the television receiver further includes an antenna which is wrapped
around the housing and is substantially U-shaped.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Steventon US 4,647,980 Mar. 3, 1987
Hesker US 6,351,242 B1 Feb. 26, 2002
Boudinot US 6,698,832 B2 Mar. 2, 2004
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boudinot in view of Steventon
and Hesker.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the combination of Boudinot in view of
Steventon and Hesker teaches an automobile headrest with a housing
including “a rear recess in which the television receiver is mounted” which
“includes an antenna . . . wrapped around the housing” as recited in
representative claim 1.

Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Boudinot discloses a television receiver within the headrest of
an automobile (Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 10-15).
2. Boudinot discloses an antenna to be used with a television
receiver and having antenna connections integrated into the
support part 5 for the display screen device 4 (col. 3, ll. 59-67;
Fig. 1).
3. Hesker teaches that antennas are adapted to take the outer shape
of the enclosure they are located within, such as the U-shaped
form if the enclosure of interest is a bumper (col. 1, ll. 48-55).
4. Steventon teaches placing a receiver in a rear recess of the
housing to allow a user to select different programs (col. 1, ll.
38-44; col. 4, ll. 3-7, 45-59; Figs. 3, 9, television receiver 25).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a
combination of known elements, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007), explains:
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his
or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)]
and Anderson’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,
396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask whether
Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430

5
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at
425.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues (Br. 8) that Steventon does not remedy the Boudinot
deficiency, because in contrast to the claimed invention, Steventon is
concerned with providing video program signals on an aircraft via a
broadcast station maintained upon the aircraft, and thus, is not concerned
with receiving over-the-air signals via an antenna. Appellant further argues
(Br. 9) that Hesker fails to disclose an antenna and a television receiver
within an automobile headrest for receiving television signals. Appellant
also argues (Br. 9) that there is no reason to modify Boudinot to include a
television receiver as taught by Steventon. Appellant finally argues (Br. 10)
that none of the cited references teaches an antenna wrapped about the
housing that is substantially U-shaped.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings of facts and reasoning as set out in the Answer (Ans. 5),
and we address the following findings of fact for emphasis.
Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430

6
Boudinot discloses a television receiver within the headrest of an
automobile (FF 1). Boudinot also discloses an antenna being used with a
television receiver and having antenna connections integrated into the
support part 5 for the display screen device 4 (FF 2). We agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 3, 5) that the antenna in Boudinot would have to
be located within the headrest since the antenna connections are integrated
into the support part 5 located below the display screen device 4 (FF 2).
The Examiner (Ans. 3, 5) relied on Hesker (FF 3) for the teaching that
antennas are adapted to take the outer shape of the enclosure they are located
within, such as the U-shaped form if the enclosure of interest is a bumper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to modify Boudinot, by specifically using a U-shaped
antenna as taught by Hesker, as is conventional to use such a shape to wrap
around the housing of interest. It is a predictable result that a U-shaped
antenna at the outer housing would provide a better signal reception. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that Steventon
provides the teaching and motivation for modifying Boudinot to incorporate
a receiver in a rear recess of the housing to allow a user to select different
programs (FF 4).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, which
attack references individually, because the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
1 and claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18, which fall with claim 1 as no
Appeal 2009-012759
Application 10/920,430

7
additional arguments of patentability were presented with respect to these
claims.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Boudinot in view of Steventon and Hesker
teaches an automobile headrest with a housing including “a rear recess in
which the television receiver is mounted” which “includes an antenna . . .
wrapped around the housing” as recited in representative claim 1.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16,
and 18 is affirmed.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797