10717242 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2011)

Ex Parte Zafar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 26, 2011

10717242 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/717,242 11/19/2003 Imtiaz Zafar DP-309090 6879 22851 7590 05/26/2011 Delphi Technologies, Inc. M/C 480-410-202 P.O. Box 5052 Troy, MI 48007 EXAMINER GESESSE, TILAHUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte IMTIAZ ZAFAR, AHMAD B. PAKRAY, KENNETH P. LEE, and J. ROBERT DOCKEMEYER JR. _____________ Appeal 2009-009513 Application 10/717,242 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Claims 4-6 and 9-11 have not been included in the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal, nor were they addressed in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, these claims remain rejected for the reasons indicated by the Examiner on page 5 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2009-009513 Application 10/717,242 2 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to an antenna and receiver system that receives AM, FM, satellite, and terrestrial rebroadcast satellite signals. See Spec: 2. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A stationary terrestrial/satellite antenna and receiver system for reception of AM, FM, satellite and terrestrial rebroadcast satellite signals, comprising: a stationary satellite antenna positioned on a surface that receives satellite signals and terrestrial rebroadcast satellite signals; a stationary terrestrial antenna positioned on the surface that receives AM/FM signals, wherein the satellite and terrestrial antenna are mounted on a mounting assembly including a low noise amplifier circuit and a bezel, wherein the bezel is adapted to contain the low noise amplifier; and a stationary integrated head unit positioned on the surface including an AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and a satellite receiver/tuner human interface, wherein the terrestrial antenna is connected to the AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and the satellite antenna is connected to the satellite receiver/tuner human interface via a conduit. REFERENCE Petros US 6,806,838 B2 Oct. 19, 2004 (filed Aug. 14, 2002) Appeal 2009-009513 Application 10/717,242 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Petros. Ans. 3-5. ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 10-12 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-18 is in error. Appellants select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-18. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that Petros does not disclose an integrated head unit that includes both “an AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and a satellite receiver/tuner human interface,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12- 18, present the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Petros discloses an integrated head unit that includes both an AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and a satellite receiver/tuner human interface? Appellants additionally argue on page 12 of the Appeal Brief that Petros does not disclose a SDARS/SAT/TER cable as the output to a satellite low noise amplifier, as disclosed in dependent claim 12. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 12 present the issues discussed above with respect to claim 1 and the additional issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Petros discloses a SDARS/SAT/TER cable as the output of the low noise amplifier? Appeal 2009-009513 Application 10/717,242 4 ANALYSIS Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a stationary integrated head unit positioned on the surface including an AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and a satellite receiver/tuner human interface.” Appellants argue that Petros does not disclose this claim limitation because Petros’s SDARS receiver is not part of the head unit and is not integrated with the AM/FM tuner. App. Br. 11. We disagree. First, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. As correctly noted by the Examiner, the claim does not require the receiver to be integrated into the head unit. Ans. 8. Instead, claim 1 requires an integrated head unit that also includes an AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and a satellite receiver/tuner human interface. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Petros discloses an integrated head unit that includes an AM/FM tuner and an SDARS/RX that is coupled to the integrated head unit via a connector (Ans. 7-8) is sufficient to meet the claim limitations. Second, Appellants’ Specification does not specifically define “integrated head unit.” However, the Specification, in paragraph [0023], indicates that the integrated head unit “may include an AM/FM receiver/tuner HMI 20, 110, an SDARS receiver/tuner HMI 22, 112, control buttons”, etc. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation that “integrated head unit” means that the SDARS/RX is “coupled to” the head unit (Ans. 7-8) is reasonable. We, therefore, concur that integrated does not mean co- mounted. Even if “integrated” meant “co-mounted,” Appellants admit that Petros discloses that “‘in most circumstances, the SDARS receiver…would Appeal 2009-009513 Application 10/717,242 5 be located in the trunk of a vehicle.’” App. Br. 11. Since the radio head unit is also located in the car, both would be located in the same housing, i.e., the car. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-3, 7-8, and 12-18 that have been grouped with claim 1. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ additional argument that Petros does not disclose an SDARS/SAT/TER cable as the output of the low noise amplifier. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue that Petros only discloses an SDARS/SAT cable and an SDARS/TER cable as outputs from a low noise amplifier. App. Br. 12. While Petros may disclose two cables rather than one that contain the three signals, we agree with the Examiner that the language of claim 12 is broader than what Appellants assert. Ans. 9. As such, the claim is not limited to a cable that carries those three signals, but rather is broad enough to encompass a cable that carries at least one of those signals. Since, Petros discloses a cable that carries SDARS/SAT on one cable and SDARS/TER on another cable, the claim limitations are disclosed by Petros and Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Thus, for the additional reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding Petros discloses an integrated head unit that includes both an AM/FM terrestrial receiver/tuner human interface and a satellite receiver/tuner human interface. Appeal 2009-009513 Application 10/717,242 6 The Examiner did not err in finding that Petros discloses a SDARS/SAT/TER cable as the output of the low noise amplifier. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-18 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)(iv). AFFIRMED msc