Ex Parte Eyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12560271 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/560,271 09/15/2009 Mark Eyer
36813 7590 07/01/2016
O'BANION & RITCHEY LLP/ SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.
400 CAPITOL MALL
SUITE 1550
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
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.
SONY.162A
(200802271.02)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1028
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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@intellectual.com
jpo@intellectual.com
sek@intellectual.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK EYER and ROBERT BLANCHARD
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11-14, 17, 18, 20-24, and 27-32. Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation
(App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 28, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2007/0094680 Al, Apr. 26,
2007), Pugel (US 2009/0235305 Al, Sept. 17, 2009), and Choi (US
2009/0252253 Al, Oct. 8, 2009).2 Final Act. 3.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Pugel, Choi, and "A/53: ATSC Digital Television
Standard Parts 1---6, 2007" ("NPL"). Final Act 8.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Pugel, Choi, and Schlack (US 2009/0271818 Al,
Oct. 29, 2009). Final Act. 9.
Claims 22-24, 27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Choi, and Schlack. Final Act. 10.
Claims 13, 14, 20, 21, 29, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Pugel, Choi, and Medford (US
2006/0242683 Al, Oct. 26, 2006). 3 Final Act. 13.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Pugel, Choi, Medford, and Schlack. Final Act. 17.
2 The statement of rejection includes claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 31. However,
claim 28 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kim, Pugel, and Choi. See Final Act. 7.
3 The statement of rejection includes claims 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 29, and 32.
However, claim 16 has been canceled and is not rejected. See Final Act. 1,
16.
2
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
THE CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION
The present invention generally relates "to emergency alert systems
and methods, and more particularly to emergency alert (EA) systems and
method for terrestrial broadcast digital television." Spec. i-f 5. Independent
claims 1 and 22 are directed to methods and independent claim 13 is directed
to a receiver. App. Br. 19-23.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for receiving a terrestrial broadcast signal, the signal
containing emergency alert information in machine-readable code, the
method comprising:
scanning a transport stream associated with the terrestrial
broadcast signal;
said transport stream containing one or more transport stream
packets;
identifying one or more transport stream packets containing
emergency alert information; and
acquiring one or more transport stream packets containing the
emergency alert information;
wherein each transport stream packet comprises a packet header
followed by packet data;
wherein the packet header comprises one or more fields;
wherein identifying one or more transport stream packets
containing emergency alert information comprises identifying a field
in the packet header or transport stream, said field being designated as
being associated with said emergency alert information; and
wherein the transport stream packets containing emergency
alert information are identified by mobile/handheld ensemble number.
3
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner en-ed. \Ve are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible en-or. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentab1e over the cited combination of references.
\Ve adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection frmn
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. \Ve provide the
fr)IIowing explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 28, and 31
Appellants contend Examiner's rationale for modifying and
combining the references for claim 1 "is a mere recital of the claim element
itself, and is a conclusory statement that the combination would yield
'predictable results."' App. Br. 11. However, the Examiner has provided
rationales for the combinations of the teachings in the prior art. See Final
Act. 4--6. Specifically, the Examiner finds the combination of Kim and
Pugel "increase[ s] efficiency [by] not using a packets payload to include
identifying information" and the combination of Kim and Choi "provide[ s]
television services to users on the go increasing user enjoyment and further
as suggested by Choi ... conform[ s] to the ATSC M/H standard allowing
for the system to support mobile/handheld devices." Final Act. 5, 6. We
find that the Examiner's rationales are sufficient.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the teachings
suggest that the combination involves the predictable use of prior art
4
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
elements according to their established functions. "The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results," KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), especially if the combination would not be
"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) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appellants have not provided persuasive rebuttal against the rationales
provided by the Examiner nor have Appellants persuasively shown that the
combination is difficult. For at least these reasons, we do not find, and
Appellants have not established, the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2, 11, 12,
28, and 31, not separately argued. See App. Br. 12.
Claim 3
Appellants contend Examiner's rationale for modifying and
combining the references for claim 3 "provides a conclusory statement in the
form of a mere recital of the claim element itself," and "does not possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." App.
Br. 12. However, the Examiner has provided rationales for the combination
of the teachings in the prior art. See Final Act. 8. Specifically, the Examiner
finds the combination of Kim and NPL "increase[ s] efficiency when
building a video distribution system by adhering to practices recommended
by an internationally accepted standard." Final Act. 8. We find that the
Examiner's rationale is sufficient.
5
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
Again, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the teachings
suggest that the combination involves the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. KSR at 416.
Appellants have not provided persuasive rebuttal against the rationales
provided by the Examiner. For at least these reasons, we do not find, and
Appellants have not established, the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 3.
Claims 7 and 8
Appellants contend Examiner's rationale for modifying and
combining the references for claim 7 "provides a conclusory statement in the
form of a mere recital of the claim element itself," and "does not possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." App.
Br. 13. However, the Examiner has provided rationales for the combination
of the teachings of the prior art. See Final Act. 9-10. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the combination of Kim and Schlack "increase[ s] system
efficiency by using a widely known and accepted video distribution standard
for encapsulating video data for distribution." Final Act. 10. We find that
the Examiner's rationale is sufficient.
Again, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the teachings
suggest that the combination involves the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. KSR at 416.
Appellants have not provided persuasive rebuttal against the rationales
provided by the Examiner. For at least these reasons, we do not find, and
Appellants have not established, the Examiner erred.
6
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 7, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 8, not separately argued.
See App. Br. 13.
Claims 22-24, 27, and 30
Appellants contend Examiner's rationale for modifying and
combining the references for claim 22 "provides a conclusory statement in
the form of a mere recital of the claim element itself," and "does not possess
a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
App. Br. 14. However, the Examiner has provided rationales for the
combinations of the teachings in the prior art. See Final Act. 10-12.
Specifically, the Examiner finds the combination of Kim and Choi
"provide[ s] television services to users on the go increasing user enjoyment
and further as suggest[ ed] by Choi ... conform[ s] to the ATSC M/H
standard allowing for the system to support mobile/handheld devices," and
the combination of Kim and Schlack "increase[ s] system efficiency by using
a widely known and accepted video distribution standard for encapsulating
video data for distribution." Final Act. 12. We find that the Examiner's
rationale is sufficient.
Again, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the teachings
suggest that the combination involves the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. KSR at 416.
Appellants have not provided persuasive rebuttal against the rationales
provided by the Examiner. For at least these reasons, we do not find, and
Appellants have not established, the Examiner erred.
7
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 22, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 23, 24,
27, and 30, not separately argued. See App. Br. 15.
Claims 13, 14, 20, 21, 29, and 32
Appellants contend Examiner's rationale for modifying and
combining the references for claim 13 "provides a conclusory statement in
the form of a mere recital of the claim element itself," and "does not possess
a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
App. Br. 16-17. However, the Examiner has provided rationales for the
combinations of the teachings in the prior art. See Final Act. 14--16.
Specifically, the Examiner finds the combination of Kim and Pugel
"increase[ s] efficiency [by] not using a packets payload to include
identifying information," and the combination of Kim and Choi "provide[s]
television services to users on the go increasing user enjoyment and further
as suggested by Choi ... conform[ s] to the ATSC M/H standard allowing
for the system to support mobile/handheld devices," and the combination of
Kim and Medford "save[s] money when constructing receivers in a video
distribution system by requiring less hardware components." Final Act. 15-
16. We find that the Examiner's rationale is sufficient.
Again, we also agree with the Examiner's findings that the teachings
suggest that the combination involves the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. KSR at 416.
Appellants have not provided persuasive rebuttal against the rationales
provided by the Examiner. For at least these reasons, we do not find, and
Appellants have not established, the Examiner erred.
8
Appeal2015-000854
Application 12/560,271
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 13, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 14, 20,
21, 29, and 32, not separately argued. See App. Br. 17.
Claims 17 and 18
Appellants have not provided separate arguments towards
patentability for claims 17 and 18. See App. Br. 18. Accordingly, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 17 and 18.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11-14, 17, 18, 20-24, and 27-32
are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9