Lam Hoang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

2018009034 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)

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.
15/276,585 09/26/2016 Lam Hoang PANA-109us (083NP) 5591
158169 7590 05/29/2020
Panasonic Avionics Corporation
(Vista IP Law Group)
26200 Enterprise Way
Lake Forest, CA 92630
EXAMINER
ALATA, YASSIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
brian.furrer@panasonic.aero
jks@viplawgroup.com
nmc@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAM HOANG

Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Sep. 26, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Jan. 23, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
July 6, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Aug. 24, 2018
(“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed Sept. 21, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Panasonic Avionics Corporation as
the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
passenger vehicle entertainment method and system (100) for presenting and
playing on a video monitor (140) media data files (144) accessed from
passenger’s personal electronic device (PED) (120). Spec. ¶¶ 24–29, Fig. 1.
Figure 1, discussed and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

3
Figure 1 illustrates vehicle (102) having installed on seat (104) therein an
entertainment system (100) including onboard management system (106) for
accessing media files (144) at PED (120) via wireless communication
modules (118, 124). Id. ¶ 24.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An entertainment system for a passenger vehicle
having seats configured to present media from a media data file
stored on a passenger's personal electronic device on a video
monitor of the entertainment system installed at one of the
seats, the entertainment
system comprising:
an onboard display system installed in the passenger
vehicle, the onboard display system including a computing
device having a processor, memory and a storage device, a
wireless communication module operatively coupled to the
computing device, and a video monitor operatively coupled to
the computing device;
a media player software application stored on the
storage device and configured to program the display system to
establish a wireless network connection to a passenger's
personal electronic device using the wireless communication
module, access data file folders having media data files and/or
media data files stored on the personal electronic device via the
wireless network connection, display the data file folders and
media data files on the video monitor and allow a passenger to
browse the data file folders and/or media data files and select a
media data file, and play the selected media data file using a
media player software program stored on the storage device to
present media from the selected media data file on the video
monitor.

Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Keen US 2011/0314490 A1 Dec. 22, 2011
Liu US 2014/0237518 A1 Aug. 21, 2014

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as follows:
1. Claims 1–10 and 12–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Liu. Final Act. 3–8.
2. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination Liu and Keen. Final Act. 9.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9–17 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–7.4

1. Anticipation Rejection
a. Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Liu describes a
vehicle entertainment system having an onboard system for playing on a
video monitor media data files stored on the passenger’s PED, as recited in

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

5
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant argues that Liu
only receives audio/video signals and then echoes or mirrors on a monitor
the images displayed on the external device. Id. at 10 (citing Liu ¶ 61).
According to Appellant, although Liu discloses a built-in multimedia player
capable of playing CDs and DVDs inserted therein, Liu does not describe
actually accessing and playing media data files stored on an external device.
Id. at 10–11. Thus, Appellant asserts that Liu discloses an onboard system
for receiving audio/video signals to simply echo the received signals on a
monitor as opposed to accessing media files from an external device and
then playing the retrieved files. Id. at 11 (citing Liu ¶ 47). Accordingly,
Appellant argues Liu does not describe displaying the media files stored on
the PED. Id. at 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Liu discloses an in-vehicle display audio video distribution system
(100) including communication tool (22) configured to communicate
wirelessly with electronic devices (80–83) to play the content thereof on
entertainment system display (21) via wireless network modules (222, 223)
and mirror the content via echo display module (229). Liu ¶¶ 43–45, 47, 53.
In particular, Liu indicates that upon connecting to external devices (80–83),
entertainment system (20) retrieves selected media files therefrom and
subsequently plays the retrieved media files. Id. ¶ 60. Appellant has not
persuasively shown such disclosure is distinguishable from the claimed
accessing of files. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Liu’s disclosure,
of the entertainment system to display and play selected media files retrieved
from the external devices connected thereto, describes the entertainment
system accessing media files from the external devices to display and to
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

6
subsequently play the accessed media files. Ans. 4–5. Consequently, we are
satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that, on the record before us,
Liu describes the disputed limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1.
b. Claims 3, 12–18, and 20
Regarding clams 3, 12, and 20, Appellant argues that Liu does not
describe “associating a PED with a particular video monitor among a
plurality of video monitors using credentials entered by the passenger to
establish the wireless connection.” Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellant
argues the Examiner’s finding that Liu inherently teaches using credentials
to establish a wireless connection is in error because one of ordinary skill
would readily understand that a user can establish wireless connection with a
PED without necessarily having to enter credentials (e.g., open WiFi). Id.
According to Appellant, while Liu discloses connecting the PED with an
entire audio/video display system, it does not teach connecting the PED with
a particular video display communicating with a wireless access point. Id. at
13–14.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. We have previously held that
“[i]n relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a
basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows
from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990) (citations omitted). Further, our reviewing court
has held that “after the PTO establishes a prima facie case of anticipation
based on inherency, the burden shifts to appellant to ‘prove that the subject
matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

7
on.’” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting In re
Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212–13 (CCPA 1971)). See also MPEP § 2112
(IV), (V).
This reasoning is applicable here. We do not agree with the Examiner
that Liu’s disclosure of the entertainment system connecting wirelessly with
the PED inherently teaches that the user of the entertainment system
necessarily entered credentials based upon which the video monitor
associated with the user is selected to display and play the contents retrieved
from the PED. Ans. 6. Although we agree with the Examiner that it is well-
established that a user inside a vehicle often uses credentials to establish
wireless connections between a PED and an entertainment system to permit
data exchange therebetween, we do not find sufficient evidence on this
record to substantiate the Examiner’s finding that the selection of a
particular monitor based on the entered credentials is similarly well-
established. Ans. 6. At best, Liu teaches the multimedia player displaying
on a monitor and playing media files retrieved from external PEDs
wirelessly connected thereto. Thus, even if Liu’s disclosure describes that
the user’s PED is probably connected to the entertainment system in
response to the user entering authentication credentials at some point, we are
not persuaded that the selection of a particular video monitor from a
plurality of video monitors necessarily ensues based on the entered
credentials. Because Appellant has shown that Liu does not inherently
describe the disputed limitations, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 3, 12, and 20.
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

8
Because dependent claims 13–18 also recite the disputed limitations
of independent claim 12, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 13–18.

c. Claim 9
Regarding the rejection of claim 9, Appellant argues that Liu does not
describe an entertainment system configured to allow multiple video
monitors to display data folders and media files from a single passenger
PED and allow a second passenger to browse the data files, select different
media files and play the selected media files. Appeal Br. 14–15. According
to Appellant, Liu not only fails to disclose displaying videos stored on the
PEDs, but it also does not describe the multiple video monitors displaying
and playing different videos. Id. at 15 (citing Liu Figures 2–5).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. First, we note the claim
does not require the different monitors to select and view different files at
the same time. Claim 9 is anticipated by Liu’s disclosure of multiple
monitors selecting and watching the same set of files. See Liu Fig. 5.
Second, as depicted in Figures 2–5 (not shown), Liu discloses the
entertainment system, upon being wirelessly connected to a different type of
PED, displays the media files thereof on a display for subsequent selection
and playback by a user associated therewith. Liu ¶¶ 22–25. Because the
different PEDs contain presumably different media file contents, we agree
with the Examiner that selection of media files retrieved from different
PEDs for subsequent playback describes the selection of different media
files for subsequent playback. Ans. 7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 9.
Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

9

d. Claims 2, 4–8, 10, and 19
Regarding the rejections of claims 2, 4–8, 10, and 19 Appellant has
not presented separate patentability arguments from those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 9 above. As such, claims 2, 4–8,
10, and 19 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
2. Obviousness Rejection
Regarding the rejection of claim 11 Appellant argues for patentability
of claim 11 based on its dependency of claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. Further
Appellant argues that Keen does not cure the noted deficiencies of Liu. Id.
As noted above, we find no such deficiencies in Liu for Keen to remedy.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 11 over the combination of Liu and Keen.
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). We also affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we
reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 3, 12–18, and 20.

Appeal 2018-009034
Application 15/276,585

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10, 19 102 Liu 1, 2, 4–10, 19
3, 12–18, 20 102 Liu 3, 12–18, 20
11 103 Liu, Keen 11
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–11, 19
3, 12–18,
20

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 IN PART