Ex Parte Bambic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

10955634 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

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.
10/955,634 09/30/2004 Robert Bambic 7256 4656
7590 06/15/2016
Zenith Electronics Corporation
2000 Millbrook Drive
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
OKEKE, ONYEDIKA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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 ROBERT BAMBIC, RICHARD LEWIS,
TIMOTHY V. FRAHM, and MOON SOO PARK
____________

Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,6341
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THU A. DANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection2 of claims 54–63 and 67–72, which constitute all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Zenith Electronics
LLC. App. Br. 1.
2 Mailed May 7, 2013.
Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a television including a remote jack for
connecting user equipment. Abstract. Claim 54 is exemplary of the matter
on appeal:
54. A television, comprising:
an internal tuner arranged to supply video and audio of a
selected channel;
a video connector for connection in communication with
a video input of a remote jack pack;
an audio connector for connection in communication
with an audio input of the remote jack pack, said audio input of
said remote jack pack including at least one audio input for
connection to an audio source not associated with a video
source;
a control connector for connection in communication
with the remote jack pack to receive control signals from the
remote jack pack; and
a processor configured to select among all of
simultaneous combinations of display of the video from the
tuner and reproduction of audio from the tuner, display of the
video from the remote jack pack and reproduction of the audio
from the remote jack pack, display of the video from the remote
jack pack and reproduction of the audio from the tuner, and
display of the video from the tuner and reproduction of the
audio from the remote jack pack in response to the control
signals, wherein the display of the video from the tuner and the
reproduction of the audio from the remote jack pack includes
reproduction of the audio from the at least one audio source not
associated with a video source.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App’x).

Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 54–63 and 67–72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (US 6,034,737; issued Mar. 7, 2000)
(“Koyama”); Shintani (US 5,602,598; issued Feb. 11, 1997) (“Shintani”);
and Vasella (US 2008/0316367 A1; published Dec. 25, 2008) (Vasella”).
Non-Final Act. 4–9.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the cited references do not teach the limitations of
claim 54, particularly “wherein the display of the video from the tuner and
the reproduction of the audio from the remote jack pack includes
reproduction of the audio from the at least one audio source not associated
with a video source.” App. Br. 4–10; Reply Br. 1–7. Appellants argue
“[e]very signal source in Koyama includes a paired or linked video signal
and audio signal” and “Koyama does not disclose that an audio source that is
unrelated to a video source should be output[ted].” App. Br. 4–5.
Appellants argue “Shintani teaches that only audio signals obtained from
video sources are to be offered for the user to select from” and “[n]owhere
within the Shintani reference is found a teaching or suggestion that audio
signals could be output from the television speakers from an audio source
not associated with a video signal.” Id. at 6.

Appellants argue, in Vasella’s first operating mode, video signals are
displayed on the television display while audio signals are played through
the hi-fi amplifier and speakers; in the second operating mode, the video
display is off so no video is displayed but an audio signal is passed through
Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

4
the television to the amplifier and speakers. App. Br. 7. According to
Appellants, “Vasella discloses three audio and video sources connected
directly to the television, none of which are sources of an audio signal that is
not associated with a video signal.” Id. Appellants further argue Figure 2
describes audio inputs (Aux 1, Aux 2, Aux 3) that have corresponding video
inputs and “Vasella fails to teach that the video signal should be displayed
on the television while an unrelated audio signal is played through the
television speakers.” Id. at 8. According to Appellants:
Even if Vasella does discuss audio sources such as CD players
and MP3 players in the background section, the Vasella
reference seeks to play these audio sources through the hi-fi
amplifier and speakers and does not teach or suggest that these
audio sources be played through the television audio system
while and unrelated video signal is being displayed on the
television.
Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Koyama, Shintani, and
Vasella teaches the contested limitations of claim 54 and provides reasons
why one of ordinary skill in the art would make the combination. Non-Final
Act. 4–7; Ans. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner finds the combination of
Koyama and Shintani teaches all limitations of claim 54 except the disputed
limitation, and relies on Vasella for the disputed limitation. Non-Final Act.
6–7; Ans. 2–3.
Regarding Vasella, the Examiner finds an audio signal and a
broadcast (video) signal are selected and also finds CD players and MP3
players (which supply only audio signals) can be used as external apparatus.
Ans. 2–3 (citing Vasella ¶¶ 5, 9). In the first operating mode of operation,
the Examiner finds the TV selects audio signals from one of the external
Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

5
apparatuses at the same time a video signal is derived from the antenna. Id.
(citing Vasella, Fig.1; ¶¶ 19–21). The Examiner finds “[t]he Vasella
reference - brought in to teach a switching mechanism, where independent
audio signals can be sent to the TV, without consideration of a video or a
corresponding video.” Ans. 2.
In addition, the Examiner finds:
For in a multimedia system, it is known to provide the user the
audio/sound available with a selected video program, or
alternatively the user may listen to an audio/sound signal which
is unrelated to the video (i.e. radio channel, music from CD
player, DVD, etc.).
Non-Final Act. 7.
We note the claim term “not associated” is not defined in the
Specification. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004). However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of
the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Vasella’s description of the first mode of operation is applicable to the
disputed limitation:
In the first mode of operation, the television apparatus 10
selects one of the audio signals from the audio/video
apparatuses 11-13 and the processed broadcast audio signal,
and outputs the selected audio/video signals via the audio
output in response to a user command. The video signal, of
course, is displayed in a display device, which can be integrated
into the television apparatus 10, as shown, or a device separated
from the television apparatus 10. The selected audio signal is
then coupled to the hi-fi amplifier 15. In the following
Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

6
discussion, only the audio switching is described to highlight
the situation that a user is only interested in audio.
Vasella ¶ 21 (emphasis added); Fig.1.
Vasella teaches external audio inputs may be audio only and also
teaches a video broadcast signal that is “not associated” with the external
audio inputs. See Vasella, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 5, 19–21. Appellants present no
persuasive argument why the claims should be limited to exclude the
teaching of Vasella. In particular, Appellants present no persuasive
evidence the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable or overbroad.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that:
Even if Vasella does discuss audio sources such as CD players
and MP3 players in the background section, the Vasella
reference seeks to play these audio sources through the hi-fi
amplifier and speakers and does not teach or suggest that these
audio sources be played through the television audio system
while an[] unrelated video signal is being displayed on the
television.
App. Br. 8.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the television
“can have speakers on its body or be an intermediary.” Ans. 3.
Accordingly, regarding claim 54, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments and, instead, agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion.
Non-Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 2–3. We agree the Examiner presents sufficient
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the obviousness
conclusion. Appellants argue an unreasonably narrow teaching of the
individual references as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art. In addition, Appellants improperly argue the individual references,
rather than the combination of the references cited by the Examiner. In re
Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

7
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ( “[O]ne cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references” (citations omitted)); In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner’s findings are
reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is
“a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–
21.
On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of the cited references was “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
Appeal 2014-007389
Application 10/955,634

8
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19). Nor have
Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which
our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.”
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 54, and
independent claims 58 and 67 as these claims rely on the same arguments
discussed above regarding claim 54. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 55–57, 59–63, and 68–72 as these claims are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 54–63 and 67–72.
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