Ex Parte Irie

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

10705336 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TOSHIAKI IRIE
____________

Appeal 2010-008033
Application 10/705,336
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-008033
Application 10/705,336

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to “a composite audio-video apparatus in
which a plurality of reproduce sections for respectively reproducing different
recording mediums such as DVDs and videocassettes, in which information
is recorded according to different specifications, are integrated into one
body.” Spec. 1, ll. 5-10.
Claims 1 and 2 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention (formatting modified and emphasis added):
1. A composite audio-video apparatus comprising:
first and second image reproduce sections for
reproducing images respectively recorded in different mediums;
first and second control sections for respectively
controlling the first and the second image reproduce section;
an operation command informing section, including a
remote operating section, for informing the first and the second
control section of an inputted operation command; and
an image output section for selectively outputting an
image reproduced by the first or the second image reproduce
section;
wherein the first control section includes a changeover
control section for controlling to change over an image input
source of the image output section;
the second control section outputs a direction signal to
the first control section only when the operating command
inputted from the operation command informing section is a
specific operation command which has been previously set for
the second image reproduce section; and
Appeal 2010-008033
Application 10/705,336

3
the first control section changes over the image output
section so that an image reproduced by the second image
reproduce section is outputted in the case where the first control
section receives the direction signal even when the image
output section is set to output an image reproduced by the first
image reproduce section, and the first control section changes
over the image output section so that the image reproduced by
the first image reproduce section is outputted in the case where
the operation command inputted from the operation command
informing section is a specific operation command which has
been previously set for the first image reproduce section.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Osakabe (US 6,400,280 B1, June 4, 2002). Ans. 3-5.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Osakabe discloses “wherein the first control section includes a
changeover control section for controlling to change over an image input
source of the image output section,” as recited in claims 1 and 2.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the “first control section” recited in claims 1
and 2 is met in Osakabe by DVCR 23 (shown in Figure 3), which is an
independent device having its own local control circuitry. Ans. 3. The
Examiner also finds that Osakabe discloses that command data from a
remote control directed to DVD 24 is transmitted through DVCR 23 via the
communication line (IEEE-1394 serial bus 26) that connects the devices in a
daisy-chain configuration, as shown in Figure 3. Ans. 6. Further, the
Examiner finds that when command data directed to DVD 24 is passed
Appeal 2010-008033
Application 10/705,336

4
through DVCR 23, and DVD 24 responds by supplying reproduced data to
digital TV 21 via the serial bus, the “first control section” (i.e., the control
circuitry of DVCR 23) is “controlling to change over an image input source
of the image output section,” as recited in claims 1 and 2. Id. (citing
Osakabe, col. 7, ll. 1-12, 28-47).
Appellant contends that Osakabe does not teach the recited limitation
because “no change in the image input source of the alleged image output
section, i.e., digital TV 21, is disclosed via a control by a changeover control
section that is part of a first control section of Osakabe.” App. Br. 10.
Appellant further asserts that “Osakabe does not disclose that any
changeover of commands and/or data is performed such that the image
ultimately reproduced is from a different image reproduce section than that
pointed to by the image output section.” Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that
Osakabe discloses the recited limitation. As used by Appellant, “chang[ing]
over an image input source of the image output section” involves changing
the source of the image output from a first image reproduce section (e.g., a
VCR) to a second reproduce section (e.g., a DVD). See, e.g., Spec. 11
(“[T]he VCR control section 21 changes over an image inputting source of
the image output section 6 between the videocassette record and reproduce
section 21 and the DVD reproduce section 31.”). While the Examiner finds
that Osakabe teaches that command data passes through DVCR 23 to DVD
24 and reproduction data from DVD 24 passes through DVCR 23 to digital
TV 21 for display, the Examiner does not point to any disclosure in Osakabe
that the control section of DVCR 23 controls changing the image input
source of the digital TV from one source (e.g., DVCR 23) to a second source
Appeal 2010-008033
Application 10/705,336

5
(e.g., DVD 24), nor do we find any such disclosure. Because Osakabe does
not disclose a “first control section [that] includes a changeover control
section for controlling to change over an image input source of the image
output section,” we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 2, or of claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 2.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Osakabe.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 is reversed.

REVERSED
tj