Ex Parte Guzman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

11475743 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

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.
11/475,743 06/27/2006 Jorge H. Guzman PD-205093 1062
20991 7590 02/01/2012
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
BORROMEO, JUANITO C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JORGE H. GUZMAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-013015
Application 11/475,743
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R MacDONALD, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013015
Application 11/475,743

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-28, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented a method for providing an interface that is
customizable by controlling the displayed information through the receiving
device according to an external device. Specification ¶ 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A system comprising:
[1] a display;
[2] a user interface;
[3] a first device coupled to the display and the user
interface, said first device having a first controller and a first
data port; and
[4] an external device having an external controller and a
second data port coupled to the first data port, said external
device communicating a command and a command identifier to
the first controller;
[5] said first controller causing the display to display the
command and when the command is selected by the user
interface, said first controller transmitting the command
identifier to the external controller through the first and second
data port.

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Nov. 17, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 23,
2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 23, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Aug. 15, 2008).
Appeal 2009-013015
Application 11/475,743

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Vogel US 5,446,488 Aug. 29, 1995
Fries US 2004/0078807 A1 Apr. 22, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 24, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Vogel.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 16-18, 19-23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogel and Fries.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7,
11-15, 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Vogel
turns on whether Vogel describes several limitations recited in claims 1, 24,
25, and 28.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, 10,
16-18, 19-23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vogel
and Fries turns on whether the combination of Vogel and Fries teach or
suggest several limitations recited in claims 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 26.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
The Examiner has summarized and addressed the Appellant’s nine
contentions with respect to claims 1, 24, 25, 28, 8, 9-10, 17, 18, and 26 at
Appeal 2009-013015
Application 11/475,743

4
Answer 13-23. We agree with the Examiner’s summarizations and
responses and accordingly 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 conclusion
reached by the Examiner.
In addition, we find that Vogel describes a first device (controller 7),
an external device (VCR 3), and a display coupled to the first device
(display 13). Vogel Fig. 1. Vogel further describes a command, such as
pause, play, and fast spooling mode (Vogel 7:14-18) and the command
identifiers are displayed on the display (Vogel 7:5-9). These commands are
signaled from the external device to the controller (Vogel 7:14-20) and a
user is enabled to selected a command using the display (Vogel 6:30-35).
Although the Appellant alleges that these specific elements required by
claim 1 are not described by Vogel, we find that Vogel indeed does describe
these elements and anticipates claim 1.
Furthermore, the Appellant’s contentions with respect to claims 28, 8,
9, and 10 are no more than general allegations that those limitations are not
taught or suggested. “It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
distinctions over the prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022 (CCPA
1979) (arguments must first be presented to the board). A general allegation
that the art does not teach any of the claim limitations is no more than
merely pointing out the claim limitations. A statement which merely points
out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
Appeal 2009-013015
Application 11/475,743

5
patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). As such, these
contentions are not found to be persuasive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 11-15, 24, 25, 27, and
28 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Vogel.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8, 9, 10, 16-18, 19-23, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogel and Fries.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-7, 11-15, 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Vogel is sustained.
 The rejection of claims 8, 9, 10, 16-18, 19-23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogel and Fries is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD