Scott Stilwell et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2019

15130542 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

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.
15/130,542 04/15/2016 Scott Stilwell ARR00722 3594
21924 7590 10/22/2019
ARRIS Enterprises LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
EXAMINER
NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2019 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):
ARRIS.docketing@commscope.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte SCOTT STILWELL, DMITRY BARABLIN, and
SERGEY KOZLOV1
_____________

Appeal 2018-008696
Application 15/130,542
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, 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 through 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method to notify an individual of an
emergency alert signal when the individual is not near a conventional

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ARRIS
Enterprises. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008696
Application 15/130,542

2

notification device. Spec. ¶ 10. Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and is reproduced below:
1. A device for use with a wireless communication
device and for use with a video display operable to
display a video, said device comprising:
a receiver operable to receive input data
including image data and emergency alert system
data;
an image decoder operable to decode the
image data into image display data;
an emergency alert decoder operable to
generate emergency alert data by one or more of:
decoding the emergency alert system
data into the emergency alert data, and
receiving data from a networked
device or sensor for generating the
emergency alert data;
an output port operable to output the image
display data to the video display to display a video
image;
a memory operable to store contact
information associated with the wireless
communication device;
a warning generator operable to generate a
warning signal comprising audio data or textual
data based on the emergency alert data; and
a transmitter operable to transmit a warning
transmission to the wireless communication device
over a cellular network, the warning transmission
being based on the warning signal and the contact
information.
Appeal 2018-008696
Application 15/130,542

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Walter (U.S. 2008/0120639 A1, May 22,
2008). Final Act. 3–5.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Walter and Alman (U.S.
2016/0295300 A1, Oct. 6, 2016). Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Walter and Tully (U.S. 2005/0166222 A1,
July 28, 2005). Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Walter, Tully and Alman. Final Act. 7–8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Walter, Tully and Schofield (U.S. 2015/0160635
A1, June 11, 2015). Final Act. 8–9.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 18.
Appellant argues that Walter does not disclose the claimed warning
generator, which generates a signal comprising audio data or textual data

2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed March 6,
2018 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed August 29, 2018 (Reply Br.); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 29, 2018 (“Answer”); and the Final Office
Action, mailed October 5, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2018-008696
Application 15/130,542

4

based on the emergency alert data or the claimed transmitter operable to
transmit the warning transmission to a wireless device over a cellular
network. App. Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2–5. Specifically, Appellant argues that
the video alert module sends content to a set top box and there is no
discussion of generating warning of audio or textual data based upon the
emergency alert. App. Br. 8 (citing Walter ¶¶ 40–41). Further, Appellant
argues that the discussion of contacting a cellular phone, cited by the
Examiner, is merely bridging a two-way communication between a phone
and an emergency access center and not a warning transmission as claimed.
App. Br. 8 (citing ¶¶ 20, 39); Reply Br. 2, 3.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments finding that two
aspects of Walter disclose the disputed feature. Answer 3–4. First the
Examiner states “[t]o a reasonable person, a call from an emergency
monitoring service would be considered a warning.” Answer 3 (citing
Walter ¶¶ 29, 30, 39, and 40). Second the Examiner finds that Walter
“describe[s] a process of retrieving information related to the emergency and
transmitting it to a cellular phone.” Answer 4 (citing Walter ¶¶ 28, 30). We
concur with the Examiner that this second teaching of Walter, which
Appellant does not address, meets the disputed limitations and, as such, we
do not reach the issue as to whether we concur with the first.
Representative claim 1 recites a warning generator that generates a
warning signal of audio or text based upon the emergency alert data and
transmitting the warning signal over a cellular network. Walter teaches that
an emergency alert received by the set top box can result in a request for
Appeal 2018-008696
Application 15/130,542

5

additional information, e.g. radar image. Walter ¶ 28.3 Further, Walter
identifies that the set top box can request that this information be sent to
another device such as e-mail or text at the user’s cellular phone. Walter
¶ 30. We consider sending a text to a cellular phone to require implicitly use
of a cellular network, and the information of the text is a warning. Thus, we
consider the teachings in paragraphs 28 and 30 of Walter to disclose the
disputed limitation of generating a warning signal of audio or text based
upon the emergency alert data and transmitting the warning signal over a
cellular network. Although claim 1 does not recite a limitation that
precludes the user identifying that the information is sent to the cellular
phone after receipt of the emergency alert data, Walter further discloses that
user preferences can result in the request for information automatically be
requested based upon type of emergency alert. See Walter ¶¶ 47–51, which
discusses user preferences to determine the type of emergency alerts to
display, whether to open an interactive action session, and identify whether
that information should be sent to another device. Accordingly, Appellant’s
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13.
Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12,
and 14 through 18, assert the obviousness rejections of these claims is in
error for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 7, and
13. App. Br. 9–10. As we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness

3 We note that the information requested can also be audio or text. See
Walter ¶ 29.
Appeal 2018-008696
Application 15/130,542

6

rejections of claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12, and 14 through 18 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 18 is affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, and 13 102 (a)(1) Walter 1, 7, and 13
2, 3, 8, 9, 14
and 15
103(a) Walter and Alman 2, 3, 8, 9, 14,
and 15

4, 10, and 16 103(a) Walter and Tully 4, 10, and 16
5, 11, and 17 103(a) Walter, Tully, Alman 5, 11, and 17
6, 12, and 18 103(a) Walter, Tully, Schofield 6, 12, and 18
Outcome 1–18

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