Ex Parte Wada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2014

12185401 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TATSUYA WADA
____________

Appeal 2011-013098
Application 12/185,401
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D.THOMAS,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-013098
Application 12/185,401

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the disclosed invention as follows:
The present invention relates to a broadcast receiving
apparatus that is arranged to be capable of transmitting
electronic mail through a network, that receives television
broadcast, and that is connected to a monitor to display thereon
received video image information. More particularly, the
present invention relates to a broadcast receiving apparatus
connected in a communicable manner to a remote controller
provided with a plurality of keys, arranged to be capable of
transmitting electronic mail through a network, receiving
television broadcast, and connected to a monitor to display
thereon received video image information.
(Spec. ¶ 0002.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A broadcast receiving apparatus that is arranged to
be capable of transmitting electronic mail via a network,
receives television broadcast, and is connected to a monitor in
such a manner as to display received video image information
on the monitor, comprising:
address memorizing portion for storing electronic mail
address information in advance;
receiving portion for receiving television broadcast of a
preset channel;
still image generating portion that receives input
operation performed externally, and that, based on the input
operation thus received, generates still image information
corresponding to video image information received through the
receiving portion; and
image transmitting portion that receives input operation
performed externally, and that, based on the input operation
thus received, attaches the still image information generated by
the still image generating portion to an electronic mail message
as an attached file and transmits the electronic mail message to
which the still image information is attached to an electronic
mail address indicated by the electronic mail address
information stored in the address memorizing portion.
Appeal 2011-013098
Application 12/185,401

3
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Cleron (US 7,308, 480 B2; Dec. 11, 2007). (Ans. 5-7.)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cleron and Kortum (US 2007/0011250 A1; Jan. 11, 2007). (Ans. 7-9.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed April 7, 2011; “Reply Br.” filed August 10, 2011)2 and the Answer
(“Ans.” mailed June 17, 2011) for the respective positions of Appellant and
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant does not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).

ISSUE
The issue presented by Appellant’s contentions is as follows: Does
Cleron disclose “generat[ing] still image information corresponding to video
image information . . . ; and . . . attach[ing] the still image information
generated by the still image generating portion to an electronic mail message
as an attached file[,]” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Cleron discloses “generat[ing] still image
information corresponding to video image information[,]” as recited in claim
1, (Ans. 5 (citing Cleron, Fig. 7; col. 6, ll. 32-57)) and “attach[ing] the still
image information generated by the still image generating portion to an

2 The Appeal Brief filed March 25, 2011 has not been considered as it is
superseded by the Appeal Brief filed April 7, 2011.
Appeal 2011-013098
Application 12/185,401

4
electronic mail message as an attached file[,]” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5-6
(citing Cleron, Figs. 7, 8; col. 7. ll. 1-4)). Appellant contends “Cleron et al.
merely teaches attaching a video clip into an email message, but is
completely silent about attaching a still image to the email message.” (App.
Br. 5.) We are unpersuaded of error.
Cleron discloses the following:
The set-top box then resizes the image to a smaller size
appropriate for display as part of an email UI [(user interface)].
The resizing uses anti-aliased scaling to maintain a high quality
image. After it is resized, it is compressed with JPEG
compression, a standard compression format for photographs.
These two steps significantly decrease the size of the data that
needs to be transmitted, and easily allow the email recipients to
display the photograph.
In the case of a video clip involving multiple frames (as
opposed to a single still image frame), the set-top box performs
essentially the same steps above. . . .
(Cleron, col. 6, ll. 50-60 (emphases added).)
Contrary to Appellant’s contentions (see App. Br. 5-6),3 we agree
with the Examiner and find that the quoted passage of Cleron discloses that
captured “video clips” may comprise a “single still image frame” (or
“photograph”) or “multiple frames.” In other words, Cleron uses the term
“video clip” to refer to both a single image frame that has been clipped from
the video stream or to multiple image frames that have been clipped from a
video stream. Further, we find the passage discloses that Cleron’s single
image frames, or “photograph[s]” are attached to email messages (see also
Cleron, col. 7, ll. 1-4).

3 We note that Appellant refers to certain evidence as being “provide[d]
herein” (App. Br. 6). However, no such evidence was listed in the Evidence
Appendix (App. Br. 10) or included with the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2011-013098
Application 12/185,401

5
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and the rejections of claims
2-6, which were not separately argued with particularity. (See App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 5.)

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4-6 as
anticipated by Cleron is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 as unpatentable over
Cleron and Kortum 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj