Ex Parte Charania et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 201814279809 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation