Ex Parte Charania et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2018

14279809 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/279,809 05/16/2014
25537 7590 04/30/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rahim A. CHARANIA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20140271 2457
EXAMINER
ALATA, YASSIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAHIM A. CHARANIA and BRADLEY D. BEA VER
Appeal 2017-011124
Application 14/279,809 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20, all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Verizon Patent &
Licensing Inc." (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-011124
Application 14/279,809
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a cable television set-top box having multiple
tuners, displaying images received from the tuners to a same display, and
providing the audio data for each image to a respective audio channel.
(Spec. i-f 1, Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, with emphasis added.
1. A device, comprising:
one or more processors to:
tune a plurality of tuners to a plurality of television
channels;
receive image data and audio data for the plurality
of television channels from the plurality of tuners;
provide the image data from the plurality of tuners
for display on a display device and for display at a first
same time;
assign the audio data from a group of the plurality
of tuners to respective audio channels of a same stereo
sound system or a same surround sound system,
the group of the plurality of tuners including
more than one of the plurality of tuners; and
provide the audio data from the group of the
plurality of tuners, and for at least two of the plurality of
television channels, for output at the first same time via
the respective audio channels of the same stereo sound
system or the same surround sound system,
the same stereo sound system or the same
surround sound system being capable of providing
different audio channel data from a same tuner, and
for a same television channel, to each of the
respective audio channels at a second same time.
2
Appeal 2017-011124
Application 14/279,809
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Choi (US 2013/0050578 Al; Feb. 28, 2013) and
Tsuchiuchi (US 2004/0133430 Al; July 8, 2004). (Final Act. 2-10.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Choi, Tsuchiuchi, and Grannan (US 2013/0298160 Al; Nov. 7, 2013).
(Final Act. 10-11.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Choi, Tsuchiuchi, and Barton (US 2011/0067048 Al; Mar. 17, 2011). (Final
Act. 11-12.)
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Choi and Tsuchiuchi
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-12) that the
combination of Choi and Tsuchiuchi would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "assign the audio data
from a group of the plurality of tuners to respective audio channels of a same
stereo sound system or a same surround sound system."
The Examiner found that the audio output lines in the control box of
Choi, which are connected to the respective tables having speakers,
correspond to the limitation "assign the audio data from a group of the
plurality of tuners to respective audio channels of a same ... sound system."
(Final Act. 3.) Moreover, the Examiner found that "if the viewers on all the
tables in the cafe are watching a sporting event and listening to it, then the
audio will be assigned from a group of the plurality of tuners to respective
3
Appeal 2017-011124
Application 14/279,809
audio channels of a same stereo sound system." (Ans. 6-7.) We do not
agree with the Examiner's findings.
Choi "relates to an audio-video system for sports cafes where a crowd
of people can watch a sporting event that is broadcast onto a screen ...
while audio is selected and listened to at a table." (i-f 2.) Figure 3 of Choi
illustrates an audio-video system (i-f 13), which includes "plural audio output
lines 8 ... connected to the respective table 2 from plural channel audio
output terminals 8al, 8bl, 8cl, 8dl of the setup box 7" (i-f 30). Choi
explains that "the locations of the tables 2, the chairs 3, and the speakers 12
can be arranged efficiently to effectively receive the audio associated with
the images." (i-f 35.)
Although the Examiner cited to control box 100 of Choi, which
includes channel audio output terminals 8al, 8bl, 8cl, 8dl, and speakers 12
of Choi, the Examiner has not identified evidence sufficient to support the
finding that Choi teaches the limitation "assign the audio data from a group
of the plurality of tuners to respective audio channels of a same stereo sound
system or a same surround sound system." In particular, while Choi
generally discloses control box 100 with audio output lines 8 and
speakers 12, the Examiner has not indicated how control box 100 is "a same
stereo sound system or a same surround sound system," as recited in claim 1.
For example, Figure 3 of Choi illustrates multiple tables 2 with multiple
speakers 12, rather than "a same stereo sound system or a same surround
sound system," as recited in claim 1. Moreover, Choi is silent with respect
to stereo, surround sound, or directionality of such audio information
transmitted from audio output lines 8 to speakers 12. Thus, on this record,
the Examiner has not demonstrated that Choi teaches the limitation "assign
4
Appeal 2017-011124
Application 14/279,809
the audio data from a group of the plurality of tuners to respective audio
channels of a same stereo sound system or a same surround sound system."
Moreover, the Examiner's application of Tsuchiuchi does not cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Choi.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that
if each speaker(s) 12 at a table 2 of CHOI is interpreted to be the
claimed "a same stereo sound system or a same surround sound
system" ... then CHOI fails to disclose or suggest "provide the
audio data from the group of the plurality of tuners, and for at
least two of the plurality of television channels, for output at the
first same time via the respective audio channels of the same
stereo sound system or the same surround sound system"
(App. Br. 11) and "CHOI's system does not provide a capability of
assigning, or providing for output, audio data from a plurality of tuners to
respective audio channels of a same stereo sound system or a same surround
sound system (e.g., a front left audio channel, a front right audio channel, a
center audio channel, etc.)" (id. at 12).
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2-6 depend from independent claim 1. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 9-16 and 18-20,
for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-011124
Application 14/279,809
§ 103 Rejection-Choi, Tsuchiuchi, and Grannan
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1. Grannan was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 7. (Final Act. 9-10.)
However, the Examiner's application of Grannan does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Choi and Tsuchiuchi.
§ 103 Rejection-Choi, Tsuchiuchi, and Barton
Claim 1 7 depends from independent claim 15. Barton was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 1 7. (Final
Act. 11-12.) However, the Examiner's application of Barton does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Choi and Tsuchiuchi.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6