Ex Parte 6871356 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2009

95000103 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

AUDIOVOX CORP.1
Requester, Appellant

v.

Patent of JOHNSON SAFETY, INC.2
Patent Owner, Respondent

Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2
Technology Center 3600

Decided:3 June 25, 2009

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Audiovox Corp. is the Third Party Requester and a real party in interest
(App. Br. 1).
2 Johnson Safety, Inc. is the Patent Owner and a real party in interest (App.
Br. 1).
3 The two month time period for filing an appeal, as recited in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.304 (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.983(b)(1)), begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date.

Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, the Third Party Requester, appeals4 from the Examiner’s
confirmation of claims 1-9 in the Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) mailed
February 17, 2006 (App. Br. 1-2). The Respondent, the Patent Owner, filed
a Respondent’s Brief5 in support of the Examiner’s rejection. The Appellant
also filed a Rebuttal Brief6 in response to the Examiner’s Answer7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315.
We AFFRIM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for inter partes reexamination
filed by Audiovox Corporation on July 28, 2005 of United States Patent
6,871,356 B2 (‘356 Patent) issued to Chung L. Chang on March 22, 2005,
based on United States Application 10/361,897 filed February 7, 2003,
where that patent was assigned to Johnson Safety, Inc.
The subject patent is directed to a mobile video system having
multiple video sources and monitors, a wireless transmitter and an audio
signal receiver (Abstract). The wireless transmitter is configured to transmit
an audio portion of a first or second audiovisual signal to a radio of the
vehicle (col. 10, l. 47 – col. 11, l. 14). At least one of the video monitors has
hinged portions attached to the housing to pivotably secure the screen
structure to the housing (col. 12, ll. 42-63).

4 Appellant’s corrected Appeal Brief (App. Br.) was filed July 18, 2006.
5 Respondent’s corrected Brief (Resp. Br.) filed August 16, 2006.
6 (Rebut. Br.) filed December 12, 2007.
7 (Ans.) mailed November 20, 2007.
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

3
Independent claim 1, which we take to be representative, reads as
follows:
1. A mobile video system, comprising:
a motorized land vehicle comprising a passenger
compartment, a first seat having a first headrest, the first
seat positioned in the passenger compartment;
a first video source that generates a first
audiovisual signal;
a second video source that generates a second
audiovisual signal;
a first video monitor configured to receive a video
portion of at least one of the first audiovisual signal and
the second audiovisual signal, the first video monitor
comprising:
a housing comprising a first hinge portion
adjacent an upper edge thereof and defining a
storage cavity having a floor, the floor having
formed therein a plurality of apertures configured
to receive fasteners for securely mounting the first
video monitor to the headrest of the first seat; and
a screen structure comprising a viewing
screen and a second hinge portion adjacent an
upper edge thereof, the viewing screen facing the
passenger compartment when the screen structure
is in a stowed position, the second hinge portion
cooperating with the first hinge portion to
pivotably secure the screen structure to the housing
such that when the screen structure is pivoted
outward from the housing, access is provided to
the apertures;
a second video monitor mounted in the passenger
compartment, the second video monitor configured to
receive a video portion of at least one of the first
audiovisual signal and the second audiovisual signal;
a radio that includes a loudspeaker and that is
installed in the vehicle; and
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

4
a first wireless transmitter configured to transmit
an audio portion of one of the first audiovisual signal or
the second audiovisual signal to the radio;
whereby a video portion of either of the first
audiovisual signal or the second audiovisual signal can
be displayed on the first video monitor, on the second
video monitor, or on both the first video monitor and the
second video monitor.
(App. Br. 11, Claims Appendix)

The prior art references relied upon by the Third Party Requester in
their Request for Inter Partes Reexamination are:
Igarashi US 4,983,951 Jan. 8, 1991
Sakurai US 5,529,265 Jun. 25, 1996
Lavelle US 6,678,892 B1 Jan. 13, 2004
Yamaoka JP 2001-047921 Feb. 20, 2001

The Examiner confirmed claims 1-9 in view of:
the reexamination of claims 1-9 in view of Lavelle, Igarashi and
Yamaoka; and
the reexamination of claims 4 and 9 in view of Lavelle, Igarashi,
Yamaoka, and Sakurai. (Ans. 3-5).

ISSUES
Appellant argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Lavelle to include a radio for receiving audio
signals from a wireless transmitter (App. Br. 4-6). Appellant also argues
that there is clear motivation to combine Lavelle with Igarashi and Yamaoka
to develop the claimed headrest video system (App. Br. 6-8). In addition,
Appellant argues that Sakurai is not merely cumulative to the other applied
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

5
references and that Sakurai does not teach away from the recited display
configuration (App. Br. 9-10). Appellant also argues that the Examiner has
misconstrued the features of the claimed embodiments and the cited
references (Rebut. Br. 10-11). Respondent argues that the Examiner
properly confirmed claims 1-9 because the cited references are not
combinable and, if they were combined, they would not include all
limitations of the claims (Resp. Br. 3-8).
The Examiner argues that the rejections in the Request for Inter
Partes Reexamination should not be adopted because the Appellant has not
explained how each and every limitation of claim 1 is met by the combined
teachings of the prior art and the Appellant fails to explain the motivation for
combining the prior art (Ans. 3-4). With respect to Sakurai, the Examiner
finds that the reference fails to cure the problems with the proposed rejection
of claim 1, and that Sakurai is cumulative and teaches away from the
combination (Ans. 5). In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner
finds that Lavelle does not disclose what Appellant has alleged, that Igarashi
and Yamaoka fail to provide sufficient reason to move the entertainment unit
of Lavelle to a headrest, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined the references since the combined structure would present a
hindrance to other features of the references (Ans. 8-14).
The following issues have been raised in the present appeal.
1. Whether the Examiner erred in confirming claims 1-9 in view
of Lavelle, Igarashi and Yamaoka.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in confirming claims 4 and 9 in
view of Lavelle, Igarashi, Yamaoka, and Sakurai.
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The specification of the ‘356 Patent discloses a mobile video
system having first and second video sources that generate first and second
audiovisual signals. The system also includes at least a first video monitor, a
wireless transmitter and an audio signal receiver. The wireless transmitter is
configured to transmit an audio portion of a first or second audiovisual
signal to a radio of the vehicle. (Col. 9, l. 57 – col. 10, l. 7, Fig. 6, elements
248, 252, 254, 258, 260, 340, 352).
Figure 6 is reproduced below:

Figure 6 shows a claimed embodiment of the instant patent
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

7
2. The specification of the ‘356 Patent also discloses that
the video monitor includes a housing with first and second
hinged portions, which cooperate to pivotably secure the
screen structure to the housing (col. 12, ll. 42-63; Fig. 9,
elements 416, 418, 436, 444).
3. Lavelle discloses an entertainment system for a vehicle
which allows multiple passengers to watch and/or listen to
different media through the use of wireless transmitters that
transmit audio signals to wireless headphones (abstract; Fig.
1A, elements 100, 112, 114-130, 190).
4. Lavelle describes that one of the media selectable by
the system includes an AM/FM radio, which is referenced as
one of the input devices (col. 4, ll. 31-39). The wireless
transmitters are disclosed as transmitting to only the wireless
headphones (col. 4, ll. 59-65), where left and right channels
for the headphones may be transmitted at different frequencies
(Fig. 1A). While two wireless headphones are illustrated, any
number of wireless headphone sets may be used (col. 4, ll. 55-
58).
5. The only display structure disclosed by Lavelle is a
vehicle ceiling-mounted screen, (col. 9, l. 43 – col. 10, l. 10;
Fig. 3), although Lavelle also discloses that the entertainment
unit may also be mounted against the front portion of the
vehicle (col. 10, ll. 11-15).
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

8
6. Igarashi discloses an automotive information display
system which includes a liquid crystal panel. The display
surface of the panel can be stationary at any desired angles in
the vertical and horizontal directions to face the driver and/or
assistant seat personnel (Abstract; Figs. 1 and 5).
7. Yamaoka discloses a monitoring device, such as a
liquid crystal display, that can be mounted on a vehicular seat
with ease without impairing its appearance (Abstract). The
monitoring device is mounted to the back face, or headrest of
the seat through frames (Figs. 1 & 2, elements 3-7, 11, 11c).
8. Yamaoka’s mounting system includes no hinged
structures and does not disclose changing any viewing, i.e.
inclination, angle of the monitoring device.
9. Sakurai discloses a display system for multiple seats,
where picture display units are mounted in recesses of rear
portions of seats through spherical-shaped support units to
allow the viewing positions to be changed (Abstract; Figs. 1
& 2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

9
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).
KSR disapproved of a rigid approach to obviousness (i.e., an analysis
limited to lack of teaching, suggestion, or motivation). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at
419 (“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.”).
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1395-96 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This is the standard for claim interpretation in both
original examination and re-examination. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow
meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or
prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader
definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed Cir. 2004).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the
plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Though understanding the claim language
may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is
important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the
claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

10
(Fed. Cir. 2004). “However, claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and
limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving
them their broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548 (CCPA 1976); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Thus, the challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification
without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the
claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2003).

ANALYSIS
Appellant raises arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 5
together but raises no arguments specific to the subject matter of claim 5
alone. Appellant also argues the proposed rejection of claims 4 and 9, but
none of the arguments are directed to the subject matter of those claims. We
therefore select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-9 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that it would not
have been obvious to modify Lavelle to include a radio receiving audio
signals from a wireless transmitter (App. Br. 4-6). The Examiner finds that
Lavelle never shows or suggests using the radio to receive audio signals
from the wireless transmitter (Ans. 8-9). We agree with the Examiner.
The Examiner has identified that the radio in Lavelle is used as an
input and there is no suggestion that it be used to receive signals from the
system’s wireless transmitter. While Appellant argues that the wireless
transmitter may transmit RF (radio frequency) signals and the AM/FM radio
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

11
may receive RF signals, it does not necessarily follow that all RF signals are
interchangeable. Lavelle also provides different frequencies for different
headphones and left and right channels thereof (FF 4). It would also be
logical to assume that concerns about interference would prevent the
wireless transmission at frequencies that would interfere with regular
AM/FM transmissions. It does not follow that the transmitted frequencies
would have to be receivable by the AM/FM radio.
Appellant also points to additional references, not applied as a part of
the rejections, which are alleged to show that wireless transmission of audio
to a vehicle’s radio from in-vehicle transmitters was well-known in the art at
the time of the invention (App. Br. 5). While the additional references may
show the state of the art, they cannot be relied upon to supply limitations
missing from Lavelle or the other references, as the Examiner has found, as
this would constitute a new ground of rejection and Appellant did not
propose it before as a ground of rejection (Ans. 9-10). Even if such
transmission and receipt were known, that does not alter what Lavelle does
or does not teach. Lavelle does not disclose that the radio may also be used
to receive transmitted audio signals sent by the wireless transmitter or
suggest any benefit in doing so. As Respondent suggests, Lavelle only
discusses the playing of a signal through existing speakers in the discussion
of the background and does not cite this as a benefit of the prior art (Resp.
Br. 8). As such, we cannot find Lavelle to teach or suggest the inclusion of a
radio receiving audio signals from a wireless transmitter.
In addition, Appellant urges that in view of the Supreme Court’s
holding in KSR, we must reject the rigid and formalistic approach to
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

12
obviousness allegedly adopted by the Examiner (Rebut. Br. 5). However,
KSR did not obviate the need for there to be some reason or rationale behind
a combination of prior art references. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. The only
rationale supplied by Appellant for modification of Lavelle is that the use of
the radio provides an additional option for sound output (App. Br. 5).
However, the actual utility of such an option is not clear given the overall
purpose of Lavelle to provide individual options to passengers (FF 3).
Lavelle makes clear that each passenger has their own wireless headphone
set, (FF 4), and providing a general audio output, as proposed by Appellant,
could conceivably result in confusion. As such, while Appellant’s
arguments provide a possible variation of Lavelle’s system, they do not
suggest a rationale that would support the modification of Lavelle under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that it would
not have been obvious to modify Lavelle to include a radio receiving audio
signals from a wireless transmitter.
With respect to motivation to combine Lavelle, Igarashi and
Yamaoka, Appellant argues that the there is clear motivation to combine
those references and that the teachings that the Examiner found to teach
away from the combination are erroneous (App. Br. 6-8). The Examiner
finds that Igarashi and Yamaoka fail to provide sufficient disclosure or
motivation to move the entertainment system of Lavelle to a headrest, that
Igarashi and Yamaoka fail to teach or suggest the hinged structure as recited
in claim 1, and that the combination would present a hindrance to the
features espoused by each reference (Ans. 10-14). We generally agree with
the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

13
Appellant alleges that the motivation to combine the references comes
from the nature of the problem to be solved, such as a desire to have
multiple passengers view multiple display devices in Lavelle, or to allow
additional information to be presented that would distract the driver in
Igarashi (App. Br. 7-8). The Examiner finds that having multiple display
devices does not require the specific configurations recited in claim 1 (Ans.
11). Also, as the Examiner has found (Ans. 11), such motivation does not
take into account the loss of the driver being able to view information, as
discussed in Igarashi, or having only passengers in the backseat being able to
“assist” the driver8. While Appellant’s concern for the driver may be
logical, none of the references cite this concern, with Igarashi supplying an
alternate motivation to directly supply information to the driver (FF 6) and
Lavelle merely providing a benefit to the driver through passenger
distraction (col. 1, ll. 20-24). As such, we agree with the Examiner that the
motivation proffered by Appellant to combine Lavelle, Igarashi and
Yamaoka is not sufficient to overcome the likely disadvantages of the
combination.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has committed error by
arguing that the prior art devices are not physically combinable, when the
analysis should consider the combination of the teachings of the references
(Rebut. Br. 9-10). We do not find the Examiner to be arguing bodily
incorporation of the embodiments disclosed in the cited prior art references;
rather, the Examiner has examined the connection structures of Yamaoka
and Igarashi and found their combination would not have the same benefits

8 Commonly referred to as “backseat driving.”
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

14
as the systems individually (Ans. 12-13). Yamaoka provides no means for
changing the viewing angle (FF 8), Igarashi allows for positioning of the
display to allow for the driver or the front seat passenger to have better
viewing (FF 6), and Lavelle discloses only a ceiling-mounted configuration
with alternative positioning in the front of the vehicle (FF 5). The
combination would suffer losses of simplicity and functionality. In addition,
we do not find that consideration of physical combinability is improper in
obviousness determinations, only that it cannot be the only factor in
considering the combination of the reference teachings. As such, we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the references since the combined structure would present a
hindrance to other features of the references.
With respect to the addition of Sakurai, we generally agree with the
Examiner that the reference fails to cure the problems with the proposed
rejection of claim 1, is cumulative and teaches away from the combination
(Ans. 5). While Sakurai illustrates that displays can be mounted to the back
of multiple seats, the spherical mounting (FF 9) would provide greater
degrees of freedom and viewing than envisioned by the specification of the
‘356 Patent. While Appellant may be correct that Sakurai “does not
criticize, discredit or discourage the claimed configuration” (Rebut. Br. 12-
13), Appellant has provided no reason why the mounting structure of
Sakurai would not be selected over the mounting structure recited in claim 1.
While Appellant may be correct that the disclosure of Sakurai does not rise
to the level of teaching away from the combination, it provides no support
for the conclusion that the mounting structure of claim 1 would have been
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

15
obvious. We agree that Sakurai does not cure the deficiencies of the
combination of Lavelle, Igarashi and Yamaoka discussed supra, and is
cumulative in that a disclosure of a single mounted screen would also render
obvious multiple mounted screens, mounted on multiple seats. As such, we
find no error in the Examiner’s confirmation of claims 4 and 9 in view of
Lavelle, Igarashi, Yamaoka, and Sakurai.
Thus, in view of the above, the Examiner’s confirmation of the claims
1-9 in view of the proffered prior art references is sustained.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in confirming
claims 1-9 in view of Lavelle, Igarashi, Yamaoka, and Sakurai.

ORDER
The Examiner’s confirmation of claims 1-9 is AFFIRMED.

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING
The times set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(a) (2008) for filing a request
for rehearing and in § 41.79(d) for filing a further request for rehearing of a
new decision may not be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(e) (“The times for
requesting rehearing under paragraph (a) of this section, for requesting
further rehearing under paragraph (c) of this section, and for submitting
comments under paragraph (b) of this section may not be extended.”). See
also MPEP § 2682 (8th ed., rev. 7, July 2008), heading “I,” first para. (“The
Appeal 2009-003315
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,103
Patent US 6,871,356 B2

16
time period for requesting rehearing under 37 CFR 41.79 is one month and
the one month period may not be extended. 37 CFR 41.79(e).”).

AFFIRMED

rvb

cc
Appellant, Third Party Requester:

F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797

Patent Owner, Respondent:

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSEN & BEAR, LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614