Ex Parte Sozeri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2016

11813096 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111813,096 03/21/2008
26948 7590 11/21/2016
VENJURIS, P,C
1938 E. OSBORN RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85016-7234
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ercan Sozeri
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.
PHDL1167-001 6769
EXAMINER
TELAN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2016 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):
docketing@venjuris.com
vclmdocket@venjuris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERCAN SOZERI
Appeal2016-001784
Application 11/813,0961
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Arcelik A.S.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-001784
Application 11/813,096
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to using a remote control to update
software of target devices, such as media devices. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
storing a new software inside the memory of a remote
control device;
sending the new software to a target device as a remote
control code;
writing the new software inside a temporary memory of
the target device;
the target device controlling whether the new software is
correct or not;
if the software is new and correct, writing the new
software inside a permanent memory of the target device, which
are applied to target devices having features of software
updating by means of a remote control device.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lim (US 2002/0013819 Al; Jan. 31, 2002) and Frazer
(US 2005/0055595 Al; Mar. 10, 2005). Final Act. 8-12.
Claims 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lim, Frazer, and Liwerant (US 2002/0056123 Al; May 9,
2002). Final Act. 13-14.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lim, Frazer, and Fawcett (US 5,845,077; Dec. 1, 1998). Final Act. 14.
2
Appeal2016-001784
Application 11/813,096
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Lim and Frazer. App. Br. 11-17; Reply Br. 5. In
particular, Appellant argues Frazer does not teach or suggest verification of
the software as "new and correct," instead teaching verification of the
software as "correct or not." App. Br. 12. Appellant argues the Examiner
"clearly uses 'new' in a manner contra[ r ]y to its plain meaning in that it
includes replacement software which is not necessarily 'new."' Reply Br. 5.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Frazer teaches a subscriber station 28 ("target device")
comprising volatile random access memory ("temporary memory") and a
non-volatile rewritable storage unit ("permanent memory"). Ans. 4 (citing
Frazer, Figs. 4A-4C, ,-i,-i 43, 48). Frazer further teaches"[ o ]nee a complete
correct copy of the update/replacement core firmware, i.e.-the 'new' core
firmware, is received ... the update process continues by writing the new
core firmware over all or part of the portion of the RSU 86 .... " Frazer
3
Appeal2016-001784
Application 11/813,096
ii 61. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Frazer's teaching that a "complete
correct copy of the update/replacement core firmware, i.e.-the 'new' core
firmware, is received" teaches or suggests verification of the software as
"new and correct." See Ans. 4-5. Appellant's argument that the Examiner's
finding is "contrary" to the "plain meaning" (Reply Br. 5) is unpersuasive
because Appellant has neither identified a "plain meaning" nor explained
how the Examiner's finding is contrary to the plain meaning of the term
"new."
Appellant also argues Frazer does not teach or suggest verifying the
software is "new and correct" before writing the software to permanent
memory, instead teaching verifying the software after it is written to
permanent memory. App. Br. 13. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, Frazer teaches copying new core firmware from RAM 82 to RSU
86. Ans. 5 (citing Frazer ii 61 ). Frazer teaches verifying the new core
firmware in RSU 86 by comparing to the previously verified copy of the
new core firmware in RAM 82. Id. Accordingly, Frazer teaches the copy of
the software in RAM 82 (the "temporary memory") is verified prior to
verification of the software in the permanent memory. Id.
Appellant also presents several conclusory arguments, including that
Frazer teaches away from the present invention (App. Br. 13, 14), Lim
"conflicts and teaches away from the Frazer reference" (App. Br. 15), Frazer
"teaches away" from Lim' s teaching of a user (App. Br. 15), the
combination uses hindsight reasoning (App. Br. 16), and Lim teaches away
from conventional transmission devices (App. Br. 17). These arguments are
conclusory and unpersuasive, and we adopt the findings and conclusions of
the Examiner in response to these arguments.
4
Appeal2016-001784
Application 11/813,096
Appellant also argues the Examiner admits neither Lim nor Frazer
teaches sending the new software as a remote control code. App. Br. 16
(citing Final Act. 5). We disagree. Appellant cites the page 5 of the Final
Action in support of this argument, but the Final Action notes that a prior
Action incorrectly stated that Lim does not teach this element, and
intervening office actions and the Final Action correct this mistake. Final
Act. 5.
For the reasons identified above, Appellant has failed to persuade us
of Examiner error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain
the rejection of dependent claim 10, which relies on the arguments
addressing claim 1 (see App. Br. 18), and dependent claims 3-6, 8, 9, and
independent claim 11, which Appellant does not argue separately (see App.
Br. 17).
Claim 2
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 2 as
unpatentable over Lim, Frazer, and Liwerant. App. Br. 18. In particular,
Appellant argues Liwerant teaches Video Share Producer 20 is software for
a computer, not a target device. Id. Appellant argues it would be improper
to combine this software with Frazer and Lim. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined
Liwerant's teaching of notifying a user that software has been found and
asking his or her approval before the download of the software with Lim's
teaching of a target device. Ans. 9-10 (citing Lim ,-i 36, Liwerant ,-i 95).
Appellant has not identified persuasive evidence in the record before us that
5
Appeal2016-001784
Application 11/813,096
the Examiner's combination would have been "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, "[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We, therefore,
sustain the rejection of claim 2 and also dependent claim 7, which Appellant
does not argue separately. App. Br. 17-18.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6