Ex Parte Bleacher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2014

11879985 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2014)

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.
11/879,985 07/19/2007 Brett Bleacher P2486US 5455
20792 7590 05/16/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
MARANDI, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2014 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 BRETT BLEACHER, MARK THOMPSON,
and TON DO
____________________

Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims and designate the
rejection of claims 10 and 17 as a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an in-flight entertainment system with
passenger video display units linked to a network. Spec. ¶ [0003]. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:

1. An aircraft passenger video display unit, the video
display unit comprising:
a housing coupled to a portion of an aircraft cabin;
a local area network interface disposed at least partially
within the housing;
a video decoder disposed within the housing, the video
decoder comprising:
a receiver for receiving video content via the
network interface, and
a decoder for decoding the video content;
a display screen coupled to the housing, the display
screen comprising:
a display screen view for displaying the decoded
video content, and
a display screen view for displaying a prompt
indicating that a passenger should insert a magnetic card;
a magnetic card reader coupled to the housing, the
magnetic card reader comprising:
a receiver for receiving the magnetic card;
a reader for reading data from the magnetic card; and
a transmitter for transmitting the read data through
the network interface.

Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

3

REFERENCES
Wakai US 5,973,722 Oct. 26, 1999
Hammond US 2002/0152470 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Newsome US 6,595,416 B1 Jul. 22, 2003
Brady, JR. US 2003/0217363 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
Kim US 2005/0279176 A1 Dec. 22, 2005
Bakke US 7,502,840 B1 Mar. 10, 2009

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Wakai and Newsome. Ans. 4-9.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Wakai, Newsome, and Kim. Ans. 9-10.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Wakai, Newsome, and Hammond. Ans. 10-12.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Wakai, Newsome, and Brady. Ans. 12-13.
Claims 11-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Wakai and Hammond. Ans. 13-19.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Wakai, Hammond, and Brady. Ans. 20-21.
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

4
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Wakai, Hammond, and Kim. Ans. 22-23.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wakai.
Ans. 23-26.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Wakai, Newsome, and Bakke. Ans. 26-27.

ISSUES1
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wakai and
Newsome teaches or suggests “a local area network interface disposed at
least partially within the housing [and] a display screen coupled to the
housing,” as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wakai and
Newsome teaches or suggests “an Ethernet switch disposed within the
housing,” as recited in claim 7?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of references teaches
or suggests that “the video display unit . . . receives kernel software code via
the serial data port,” as recited in claim 10 and 17?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1
Independent claim 1 recites “a local area network interface disposed at
least partially within the housing [and] a display screen coupled to the
housing.” The Examiner finds that the disputed limitations are taught by

1 Appellants’ arguments relating to claim 21 were withdrawn. As such,
Appellants are relying upon the arguments of claim 1 from which claim 21
depends. Reply Br. 8.
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

5
Wakai. Ans. 5, 28, and 29. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Wakai’s
Seat Electronics Unit (“SEU”) has a housing that is coupled to a display
screen and includes at least part of a local area network interface. Id.
Appellants argue that Wakai’s system does not teach the coupling
limitation because Wakai’s display screen is electrically coupled, not
mechanically coupled to the housing. App. Br. 16 and 18; Reply Br. 2-3 and
5. We disagree.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Claim 1 does not require a particular type of coupling, just that the display is
coupled to the housing. Additionally, the Examiner finds (Ans. 28) and we
agree that Appellants’ Specification does not specifically define the term
“coupled.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “coupled”
includes both an electrical coupling and a mechanical coupling.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 29) that Wakai’s
SEU and display are both electrically and mechanically coupled since they
are connected through a physical connection of a cable. See also Wakai,
Fig. 11 and col. 15, ll. 23-25.
Appellants also argue that although Wakai’s SEU contains electronics
for communicating with a display, the SEU does not contain a display. We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 31-33) that claim 1 does not require that
Wakai’s SEU include a display, but rather it requires that Wakai’s SEU and
display are coupled to one another. Since the Examiner finds that Wakai’s
SEU is connected both electrically and mechanically to a display (Ans. 31-
33), Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

6
Claim 7
Appellants argue that Wakai does not teach “an Ethernet switch
disposed within the housing,” as recited in dependent claim 7. App. Br. 20-
21. The Examiner finds that Wakai teaches Ethernet ports contained within
an ATM switch backplane that are switched using an ATM protocol. Ans.
8-9. Appellants contend that these switches are not contained within the
housing because they are separate from the SEU and the SDU. App. Br. 20-
21. The Examiner finds that Wakai teaches a housing that includes the
display unit as well as other components (including the Ethernet switches)
that make up the in-flight electronics system, as seen in Figure 1. Ans. 36-
37. We agree. We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 37) that even if the
Ethernet switch was required by the claim to be included within the housing
of the display unit, it would have been an obvious modification to include
the Ethernet switch card in the SEU “in order to support multiple devices
and save space (as has been disclosed in Fig. 10 of Wakai).” Ans. 37. As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.

Claims 10 and 17
Appellants argue that Wakai does not teach the limitation “wherein
the video display unit . . . receives kernel software code via the serial data
port,” as recited in dependent claims 10 and 17. App. Br. 24 and 26-27.
Appellants specifically contend that Wakai’s distinction between content
data and control data is not the same as the claimed distinction between
application software code and kernel software code. Reply Br. 7-8. We
agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings regarding these
claims. Ans. 13, 21, and 38-40. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

7
that Brady teaches the use of a serial data port (Ans. 39) and Wakai teaches
loading control software by authorized users and content and gaming
applications by passengers. Ans. 39. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 39-40) that the combination of Wakai and Brady teaches
that particular limitation.
However, in order to clarify the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 39-40) and
provide an additional rationale for the rejections, pursuant to our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 10
and 17.2 The type of data received via the network interface and the serial
data port, as required by the claims, is non-functional descriptive data
because we find that it is not patentably consequential. The difference
between Wakai’s content data and control data and the claimed application
software code and kernel software code is a difference in the type of
information or data. Patentable weight need not be given to descriptive
material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the
descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-
83 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Kernel software code” is a term of art for the portion of an operating
system “that manages memory, files, and peripheral devices; maintains the
time and date; launches applications; and allocates system resources.”
MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (Microsoft Corp. 2002)(“kernel”).
Arguably, there exists a functional relationship between the kernel software
code and the video display unit which receives the kernel software code.
Nevertheless, Appellants do not argue that any functional relationship

2 These new grounds of rejection incorporate the rationale provided by the
Examiner for the rejections of claims 10 and 17. Ans. 13, 21, and 38-40.
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

8
between the kernel software code and the video display unit is either novel
or unobvious. See App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 7-8. On the other hand, there
is no apparent functional relationship between kernel software code as a
particular type of software code and a serial port used to receive that code;
the serial port merely acts as a conduit for receiving signals without
distinguishing between different types of software encoded in the signals.
The Appellants have not identified any functional relationship between the
kernel software code and the serial port. See id.
The Examiner correctly finds that Brady describes the use of a serial
port in a system for controlling an in-flight entertainment system. In
addition, the Examiner correctly finds that “Wakai fully discloses the
distinction between control data [to which kernel software code is related, if
not a particular type] and content/application software.” Ans. 39. Wakai
also discloses that control and application software may require different
“levels of access by various groups of users (administrators vs.
users/passengers) and various modes of loading the same.” Id. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the
subject matter of claims 10 and 17 was made to have received kernel
software code through a port separate from that used to receive application
software code. Given the known use of serial ports in aircraft passenger
video display units; as well as the fact that there exists no novel and
unobvious functional relationship between kernel software code and a serial
port, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
that the subject matter of claims 10 and 17 was made to have had kernel
software code received through a serial port.
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

9
Since our discussion above adds new reasoning to the Examiner’s
original rejection, we designate as new grounds of rejection the rejections of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Wakai,
Newsome, and Brady and claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Wakai, Hammond, and Brady for the reasons
discussed supra.

Claims 11 and 20
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to independent
claims 11 and 20 as with respect to independent claim 1. App. Br. 25 and
28. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 20 for
the same reasons as indicated supra with respect to claim 1.

Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-16, 18, and 19
Appellants argue that claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-16, and 19 are obvious for
the same reasons as claims 1, 10, and 11, and because the claims depend
from claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 20-28. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-18, and 19 for the same reasons
as indicated supra with respect to claims 1, 10, and 11.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Wakai and
Newsome teaches or suggests “a local area network interface disposed at
least partially within the housing [and] a display screen coupled to the
housing,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

10
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Wakai and
Newsome teaches or suggests “an Ethernet switch disposed within the
housing,” as recited in claim 7.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of references
teaches or suggests “the video display unit . . . receives kernel software code
via the serial data port,” as recited in claims 10 and 17.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 is affirmed. We
designate the rejection of claims 10 and 17 as a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

TIME PERIOD
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

Appeal 2011-010323
Application 11/879,985

11
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
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

msc