11187785 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

Ex Parte Zeyher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 20, 2013

11187785 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

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. 11/187,785 07/22/2005 Billy Zeyher SONY-29500 7862 7590 02/20/2013 Jonathan O. Owens HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP 162 North Wolfe Road Sunnyvale, CA 94086 EXAMINER KHAN, OMER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/20/2013 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 BILLY ZEYHER and JEFFREY A. MCNALL ____________ Appeal 2011-002631 Application 11/187,785 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002631 Application 11/187,785 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-31 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The claims are directed to centrally controlling network devices. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system to centrally control a plurality of network devices, the system comprising: a. an RF Radio Frequency] distribution system; b. a plurality of receiver devices coupled to the RF distribution system; c. one or more of a plurality of network devices coupled to each receiver device; and d. a central control point coupled to the RF distribution system to provide one-directional signaling from the central control point through the RF distribution system and the plurality of receivers to the plurality of network devices, wherein the central control point transmits control signals to a select one or more of the plurality of network devices, wherein the control signals actuate a device setting of the select one or more of the plurality of network devices. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kuban US 4,994,908 Feb. 19, 1991 Appeal 2011-002631 Application 11/187,785 3 Kawasaki Fuller Yoshimoto Hoshino Niikawa US 5,031,045 US 5,818,512 US 2002/0023125 A1 US 2002/0151362 A1 US 7,230,647 B1 July 9, 1991 Oct. 6, 1998 Feb. 21, 2002 Oct. 17, 2002 June 12, 2007 (filed Mar. 17, 2000) REJECTIONS Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-28, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuller and Yoshimoto. Claims 11 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuller, Yoshimoto, and Hoshino. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuller, Yoshimoto, and Kuban. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuller, Yoshimoto, Niikawa, and Kawasaki. ANALYSIS Appellants contend that the combination of Fuller and Yoshimoto fails to disclose “wherein the control signals actuate a device setting of the select one or more of the plurality of network devices,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5-9). We disagree. We begin by construing the argued “wherein” clause of claim 1. The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE, 8th ed. Rev. 9, August 2012 (“M.P.E.P.”) cautions that “[l]anguage that suggests or makes Appeal 2011-002631 Application 11/187,785 4 optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim . . . .” M.P.E.P. § 2103(I)(C). For example, “language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim” includes “‘wherein’ clauses.” Id. The “wherein” clause at issue in this case does not further limit the claimed “system” because the language “actuate a device setting” does not require any particular structure. That is, the claim does not specifically define the device setting that can be actuated by the control signals, and therefore does not specify any particular structure associated with the device setting. Further, the Specification does not shed light on whether the claimed device setting requires any particular structure, rather it states that “each network device is any device capable of being controlled [by] an external means” (Spec. 5:24-25) (emphasis added). While the Specification indicates that a network device can be a “Sony Infrared Remote Control System (SIRCS) capable device” (Spec. 5:25-26), it does not describe any specific structure associated with a device setting in a SIRCS capable device that can be actuated by a SIRCS control signal; and in any case, it is merely an exemplary embodiment. Nevertheless, even if we were to give weight to the “wherein” clause, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this clause encompasses a digital data control signal that changes a data value in a general memory of a network device. Yoshimoto discloses a display device that receives a signal from an information processing center, where a screen constructor in the display device converts the received signal into a display signal (Yoshimoto, ¶ [0021]). The signal can contain differential information which the screen constructor uses to update picture information Appeal 2011-002631 Application 11/187,785 5 in memory, and the updated picture is then displayed (Yoshimoto, ¶¶ [0055]-[0058]). Appellants argue that Yoshimoto’s “information processing center only provides the terminals with processed results,” and therefore “Yoshimoto does not teach a central control point that transmits any control signal to one or more network devices, . . .” (App. Br. 7) (citation omitted). However, as cited above, the signal sent from Yoshimoto’s information processing center instructs the display device how to change a picture by providing it with differential information, rather than simply providing a completed picture signal to display. Accordingly, the received signal operates as a control signal because it controls changes to the picture stored in the display device’s memory. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5, 13-14) and find that the cited combination of Fuller and Yoshimoto would have taught or suggested “wherein the control signals actuate a device setting of the select one or more of the plurality of network devices,” within the meaning of claim 1, as discussed above. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-12 not separately argued. Although Appellants nominally argue claims 13-31 separately, the arguments presented merely refer back to the same arguments relied on for claim 1 (see App. Br. 10-12), and thus we treat claims 13-31 as argued together with claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the rejections of claims 13-31 for the reasons discussed above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-002631 Application 11/187,785 6 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-31. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw