Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

13331969 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/331,969 12/20/2011
20991 7590 06/22/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC
PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA I LAI I Al09
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Leo Wu
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PD-210022 1004
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEO WU, DIEM V. NGUYEN, HUY Q. TRAN,
MANUEL J. HAM, DUC V. TRAN, and TRINH HOANG
Appeal2014-009658
Application 13/331,969
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a system and
method for "set top box testing." Spec. i-f 1.
Appeal2014-009658
Application 13/331,969
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of testing a set top box comprising:
[a] generating a test script including a bitstream;
[b] communicating the bitstream to the set top box;
[ c] generating a screen image in response to the
bitstream;
[ d] performing optical character recognition of the
screen image to obtain a test text comparing the test text string
with an expected text string; and
[ e] generating a report in response to comparing.
(Bracketing and emphasis added).
Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious
over the combined teachings and suggestions of Liu (US 2008/0036865 Al;
published Feb. 14, 2008), and King et al. (US No. 2010/0183246 Al;
published July 22, 2010).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of all claims
rejected on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2014-009658
Application 13/331,969
ISSUE
Under§ 103(a), did the Examiner err by finding the cited combination
of Liu and King would have taught or suggested the contested limitation,
performing optical character recognition of the screen image to
obtain a test text comparing the test text string with an expected
text string,
within the meaning of representative claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims
1-20, and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons
and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend: "Liu does not disclose performing optical
character recognition of a screen image to obtain a test text string, where the
screen image was generated in response to a bitstream of a test script
communicated to a set top box, as claimed." (App. Br. 4--5). In support,
Appellants further contend:
[A] test text string obtained during a method of testing a set top
box cannot be found anywhere in King .... Paragraph [0083] [of
King] does not disclose a set top box, a test text string,
communicating a bitstream of a test script to a set top box,
generating a screen image in response to a bitstream
communicated to a set top box, and/ or performing optical
character recognition of a screen image, generated in response to
a bitstream communicated to a set top box, to obtain a test text
3
Appeal2014-009658
Application 13/331,969
string. Paragraphs [0236], [0251] and [0540] of King do not
disclose performing optical character recognition of a screen
image to obtain a test text string, where the screen image was
generated in response to a bitstream communicated to a set top
box. A test text string is not disclosed in any of these paragraphs.
King does not disclose the limitations of comparing a test text
string with an expected text string and generating a report in
response to the comparing. As shown above, King does not
disclose generating a test text string during testing of a set top
box and based on a bitstream of a test script communicated to the
set top box. Thus, King cannot disclose comparing the test text
string, obtained during optical character recognition of a screen
image generated in response to a bitstream communicated to a
set top box, with an expected text string and generating a report
in response to the comparing. King does not disclose testing a
set top box and/or generating a test text string.
(App. Br. 5-7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions because Appellants
are arguing the references separately. 1 The Examiner cites Liu's test signal,
test items, and test criteria values, and not King, for teaching or suggesting
the contested "test text string." (Final Act. 3, citing Liu i-fi-16, 20). We agree
with the Examiner's finding that King's system, which uses an OCR
technique comparing bit-mapped images or text from rendered documents,
with information stored in a database, teaches or suggests contested
limitation "d" of claim 1. (Ans. 11-12, King i-fi-163, 83, 236, 251, 259, 501,
615).
1 One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal2014-009658
Application 13/331,969
Because we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
under§ 103(a).
Regarding independent claim 11, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contention (infra), because Appellants merely recite the claim language
without providing supportive evidence or substantive arguments: 2
As shown above, Liu and King fail to disclose testing a set top
box including: communicating a bitstream of a test script to the
set top box; generating a screen image in response to the
bitstream; performing optical character recognition of the screen
image to obtain a test text string; comparing the test text string
with an expected text string; and generating a report in response
to the comparing. Thus, Liu and King cannot disclose the
claimed system for testing a set top box and/ or the claimed test
manager module, bitstream player, optical character recognition
module, and/or report module.
(App. Br. 8)
Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 11.
Because Appellants do not provide separate, substantive arguments
for claims 2-10, and 12-20 (rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11),
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.").
5
Appeal2014-009658
Application 13/331,969
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we
note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal
Brief, or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer,
will not be considered except for good cause, which Appellants have not
shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6