Ex Parte Weightman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2008

09259621 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID M. WEIGHTMAN
____________

Appeal 2008-1336
Application 09/259,621
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: September 10, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,
And STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 12, 20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U. S.C. § 6(b).
As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2008-1336
Application 09/259,621

1. A method to coordinate the control of two or more programs,
comprising:

obtaining a command sequence having a plurality of commands;

selecting a first command from the command sequence, the first
command having an associated first time value and an associated first target
program to control a first device;

executing instructions on a processor-based system to issue the first
command to the first target program at a time corresponding to the first time
value;

selecting a second command from the command sequence, the second
command having an associated second time value and an associated second
target program to control a second device separate from the first device
following issuance of the first command,

executing the instructions on the processor-based system to issue the
second command to the second target program at a time corresponding to the
second time value;

executing the first target program on the processor-based system; and

executing the second target program on the processor-based system.

The following references are relied on by the Examiner:
Evans US 5,412,377 May 2, 1995
Berry US 5,774,063 Jun. 30, 1998
Srivastava US 6, 067,478 May 23, 2000

2
Appeal 2008-1336
Application 09/259,621

All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness as to claims 1 through 3, 8, and 20, the Examiner
relies upon Srivastava in view of Berry, with the addition of Evans in a
second stated rejection as to claims 4 through 7, 9 through 12, and 22.
Rather than repeat verbatim the positions of the Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’
positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as expanded
upon here, we sustain the two rejections encompassing all claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In both the Brief and Reply Brief, Appellants
presents arguments only as to independent claim 1 in the first stated
rejection. Patentability of those claims encompassed in the second stated
rejection at pages 12 and 13 of the principal Brief and in the Reply Brief rely
for patentability upon the position set forth with respect their parent
independent claim 1 in the first stated rejection. There is no argument that
the references are not properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The theme of Appellants’ positions with respect to both Srivastava
and Berry as set forth in the Brief and Reply Brief appears to be the same,
that is, that alone or in combination these two references do not disclose
commands having an “associated” time value and that such commands are
not “issued” at a time corresponding to those time values, as set forth
initially at the bottom of page 7 of the principal Brief on Appeal. We
strongly disagree with these views.
3
Appeal 2008-1336
Application 09/259,621

The subject matter argued of independent claim 1 on appeal permits
execution to “issue” a command having an “associated” set time at the
“associated” or same time set time for the execution of it with respect to the
target program for a device. The respectively claimed first and second
commands have only broadly “associated” respective first and second time
values. Thus, the best statement of the Examiner’s views at page 7 of the
Answer, which are recognized at page 2 of the Reply Brief, is consistent
with this view and we believe the artisan’s understanding of the combined
teachings of the references. These views are consistent with disclosed
figure 2 and the specification as filed at page 4, lines 7-12. Likewise, the
scope of claim 1 appears to be encompassed by the admitted prior art
teachings in the paragraph bridging specification pages 1 and 2.
The so-called programmable macro instruction in Srivastava controls
in turn the execution of software representations associated with respective
home entertainment devices in figure 1 of this reference in the discussion
associated with this figure beginning at the middle of column 2. These
software representations appear to correlate to the claimed target programs.
In the corresponding manner, Berry’s abstract and summary both
indicate that respective consumer devices may have their own respective
application programs. The teaching value of Berry is consistent with the
teaching value of the macro instruction in Srivastava by indicating that the
computer in figure 1 may be used to program in a similar macro sense the
operation of different consumer electronic equipments such as TV 10 and
VCR 14 in figure 1 of Berry.
4
Appeal 2008-1336
Application 09/259,621

Figure 2 of Srivastava and the discussion of it beginning at the bottom
of column 3 indicates the manner in which the creation of such a macro
instruction occurs such that in step 214 the user finalizes this creation so as
to be able to perform the steps automatically in the designated order or in
another order that the user may specify afterward according to the teachings
at column 4, lines 7 through 11. The discussion of the performance or the
playing of the macros at column 3, lines 51 through 64, indicates that they
may be set for a specified time or date. Thus, the artisan may interpret these
time-based instructions to permit functional commands to be “issued” to the
software representations or target programs of the respective devices at the
time the devices are to begin there functioning or at a different time.
In a corresponding manner as well, the programmability of Berry’s
computer 20 in figure 1 to control various consumer electronic equipments
begins at the bottom of column 3 through the end of column 5. The record
reveals that Berry is clear as to being able to establish the start time and
duration according to the discussion at column 4 for each specific program
or target program associated with a given unique device. The C OMMAND
PTR is identified at the bottom of column 4 to be a pointer to a table of
on/off times for the selective command sequences associated with the
software of a given device. Moreover, the discussion in the first three lines
at column 5 indicates that a counter is used to determine when an original
timer software in the home computer itself must be called upon to avoid loss
of real time programming functions for the respective devices. Therefore,
the artisan would understand or associate this feature with the “issuing” time
of the instructions to control a specific device.
5
Appeal 2008-1336
Application 09/259,621

We, therefore, do not agree with Appellants’ assertion at page 3 of the
Reply Brief that Berry may not be interpreted by the artisan as disclosing the
execution of instructions in a home computer to “issue” a command to a
VCR program at an “associated” start time. Berry’s directions may be
interpreted to start it at any time. Within claim 1 and within Berry, the
respective start times can be the same time or different times as are
“associated” for their respective devices.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejection
claims 1 through 12, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON TX 77269-2289
6