Ex Parte Lau

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

13038905 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/038,905 03/02/2011 Dannie C. Lau
109676 7590 07114/2016
Brooks Kushman P,C,/Harman
1000 Town Center
Twenty Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
HARM0163PUSP 9760
EXAMINER
ALATA, YASSIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANNIE C. LAU1
Appeal2014-008244
Application 13/038,905
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 20-39. Claims 1-19 have been canceled. Final Act. 5. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Harman International Industries, Incorporated as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008244
Application 13/038,905
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to "home theater systems with
wireless audio and video capabilities." Spec. i-f 3. In a disclosed
embodiment, a headunit connects to various audio/video devices and, using
a lossless protocol, wirelessly transmits raw video and audio signals to a
soundbar. Spec. i-f 10. The soundbar is able to provide, for example, video
and audio to a television via a cable, such as an HDMI cable. Spec. i-f 10.
According to the Specification, by consolidating the connections from
various audio/video devices to a headunit that wirelessly transmits to a
soundbar connected to a television, cabling connections to a television in a
home theater system are reduced. Spec. i-f 8, Abstract.
Claim 20 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
20. An audio/visual system comprising:
a headunit having a wireless transmitter configured to transmit
wireless signals encoding a lossless protocol for audio and video
signals, an audio/video (AV) input configured to receive audio and
video signals from at least one device, a network interface configured
to connect to a local or wide area network, and a headunit controller
coupled to the network interface, the AV inputs, and the wireless
transmitter, the controller processing signals from the AV input and
providing the signals to the wireless transmitter; and
a soundbar having a wireless receiver configured to receive the
wireless signals from the headunit, a speaker array, a television
interface, and a controller coupled to the wireless receiver, the speaker
array, and the television interface, the controller configured to provide
an encrypted AV signal to the television interface based on the
wireless signals from the headunit.
2
Appeal2014-008244
Application 13/038,905
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 20-25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacMullan et al. (US 2006/0209892
Al; Sept. 21, 2006) ("MacMullan") and F. Panaitescu, JVC Taking Out First
Wireless Soundbar Sound System, the TH-BAJ, Dec. 2009 ("Panaitescu").
Final Act. 5-8.
2. Claims 26 and 29-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over MacMullan, Panaitescu, and Hardacker et al. (US
2005/0136990 Al; June 23, 2005) ("Hardacker"). Final Act. 8-13.
Issue on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of MacMullan and
Panaitescu teaches or suggests "a soundbar having a wireless receiver," as
recited in claim 20?
ANALYSIS3
In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds MacMullan teaches or
suggests the various limitations of claim 20 except for "a soundbar having a
wireless receiver," as recited in claim 20. Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellant's arguments.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
May 5, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed July 17, 2014 ("Reply Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed on May 21, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed on December 3, 2013, from which this
Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal2014-008244
Application 13/038,905
relies on Panaitescu "to show a soundbar having a wireless receiver."
Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 6 (citing Panaitescu i-fi-12--4).
Appellant asserts the Examiner erred because Panaitescu does not
teach the soundbar includes a wireless receiver, but rather "a wireless
transmitter that provides wireless audio to a wireless subwoofer and also to
a separate wireless audio receiver connected to surround speakers." Reply
Br. 2 (citing Panaitescu i12) (emphasis added).
We find Appellant's argument persuasive of Examiner error. We do
not find the Examiner's explanation that Panaitescu's wireless soundbar "has
to receive a signal from somewhere" (Ans. 6-7) as teaching the soundbar
has a wireless receiver. Rather, Panaitescu teaches the soundbar includes
speakers, a built-in power amplifier, surround decoding, and "a transmitter
for the detached surround speakers." Panaitescu i1 4. "Connectivity is
featured as one analog and two optical digital inputs." Id. The wireless
receivers are included as part of the wireless subwoofer and wireless rear
speaker kit. Panaitescu i1 3. The wireless sub woofer and wireless rear
speakers receive audio signals from the soundbar. See Panaitescu i-fi-12--4.
Thus, as articulated and relied upon by the Examiner, we do not agree the
soundbar disclosed by Panaitescu includes a wireless receiver.
For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we are
constrained to not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 20,
or, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 29 and 34, which
recite similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 21-28, 30-33, or 35-39.
4
Appeal2014-008244
Application 13/038,905
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 20-39.
REVERSED
5