Ex Parte Lavelle et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311556486 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PATRICK M. LAVELLE, JAMES R. TRANCHINA, and GEORGE C. SCHEDIVY ____________ Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. We also enter a new rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants describe the invention as follows: A media system for a vehicle comprises a media unit including a display mounted to a seat of the vehicle, a databus line running from the media unit through the seat, and a plurality of media sources electrically connected to the databus line. Spec. 18, Abstract of the Disclosure. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A media system for a vehicle, comprising: a media unit including a display and a first media source mounted to a seat in the vehicle; and a first databus electrically connected to a plurality of media sources, wherein the media unit is electrically connected to the first databus for receiving media from the plurality of media sources, the plurality of media sources and the first databus are positioned remote from the seat, and media from the first media source is provided to the first databus. The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of unpatentability: Reed US 6,058,288 May 2, 2000 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2009 (“Final Rej.”), Appeal Brief filed February 22, 2010 (“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed September 3, 2010 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed November 3, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Reed. Ans., pp. 3-6. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3-25 are rejected as anticipated by Reed. Only claims 1, 14, and 21 are independent. In accord with the recitations of claims 1, 14, and 21, all claims require a databus, seat-mounted media unit having a display and media source providing media to the databus, and remote media sources transmitting over the databus to the media unit. The Examiner reads these limitations on Reed’s teachings in two different respects, each of which is persuasively contested by Appellants as being in error. First, in the final rejection prompting this appeal, the Examiner reads (i) the claimed databus on Reed’s cable groups 26, (ii) the claimed media unit on Reed’s “Video Display Units” (VDUs) 14, and (iii) the claimed media sources on Reed’s “Entertainment Servers” (ES) 24. Final Rej., 2; see also Ans., pp. 3-4. Appellants correctly contest these findings as failing to establish that Reed’s VDU’s 14 (claimed media unit) include media sources transmitting media over the cable groups 26. App. Br., p. 7. Second, in the Answer’s “Response to Arguments” section, the Examiner newly reads the claimed media unit on Reed’s “Video Distribution Box” (VDB) 18. Ans., p. 7. Appellants persuasively contest these findings as failing to establish that the VDB’s 18 (claimed media unit) are mounted to seats and include media sources transmitting media over the cable groups 26. Reply Br., pp. 2-3. Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 4 For the above reasons, the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 3-25 over Reed is not sustained. NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Reed.2 Claim 1 As discussed above, claim 1 requires a databus, seat-mounted media unit having a display and media source providing media to the databus, and remote media sources transmitting over the databus to the media unit. These limitations are met by: moving Reed’s “Entertainment Switching Unit” (ESU) 22 into the “Communications Control Unit” (CCU) 29; using a databus to carry media and control data between Reed’s CCU 29/ESU 22 (a CCU 29 including the ESU 22), VDB’s 18, and ES’s 24; and mounting the CCU 29/ESU 22 to a seat. After these modifications, the claimed databus reads on the databus, the claimed media unit and included media source respectively read on the CCU 29/ESU 22, and the claimed media sources read on the ES’s 24. For easier understanding of the modification and its resulting configuration, we have reproduced Reed’s Figure 2 below. 2 Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are separately addressed by Appellants’ briefs. Because we have been briefed on only these claims, we leave the Examiner and Appellants to consider the remaining claims in light of our findings. The exercise of authority under 37 CFR 41.50(b) is discretionary. No inferences should be drawn from the lack of new grounds of rejection for other claims. App App parti ES’s direc 7, ll. devi skill 3 The datab exam that expl eal 2011-0 lication 11 Reed’s F Impleme cularly be 24 are all t data betw 50-55. W ces is a me in the art i skill in th us techno ples or ex is, reflecte anations w 04072 /556,486 igure 2 is ntation of cause Reed interfaced een the V e find that re commo n 2006 at e art in 20 logy, is re planations d by Appe ere not ne a schemat the databu ’s disclos such that DB’s 18 a transmitti n sense sim the time o 06, includ flected by of a datab llants’ imp eded to dis 5 ic view of s is a com ed CCU 2 the CCU 2 nd ES’s 2 ng data vi plificatio f Appellan ing the art the Specif us (see e.g licit belie close an e the cited s mon sense 9, ESU 22 9 and ESU 4. Reed, c a a databu n that was ts’ filing d ’s general ication’s l ., Spec., p f that such nabled dat ystem. modifica , VDB’s 1 22 colle ol. 6, ll. 1 s shared by within th ate.3 See understan ack of in-d . 8, l. 23 – examples abus for th tion, 8, and ctively 8-22; col. these e ordinary Leapfrog ding of epth p. 9, l. 5) and e present ; Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 6 Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (addressing the obviousness of adapting an old idea to newer technology). Moving the functionality of Reed’s ESU 22 into the CCU 29 would have also been a common sense modification, particularly because the ESU 22 is operated by the CCU 29. As to the CCU 29, Reed explains: The CCU 29 directs a communication interface between the VDB 18 and the various video services offered in the system. The CCU 29 further provides a telephone interface, including facsimile capabilities, between the passenger seat and the CTU 30. The CTU 30 provides the telecommunications interface for the system. Reed, col. 6, ll. 20-25. As to the ESU 22, Reed explains: The ESU 22 works in conjunction with portions of the CCU 29 to provide the resource distributions switching for the system. The CCU 29 requests the ESU 22 to connect a passenger to a requested entertainment source. The ESU 22 provides local control of the physical switches resident in the ESU 22. Id. at col. 7, ll. 50-55. As with the proposed databus modification, we find the proposed placement of the ESU 22’s functionality within the CCU 29 is a mere common sense simplification that was within the ordinary skill in the art in 2006 at the time of Appellant’s filing date.4 See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. invention. The comparative skill in the art in 1996 is reflected by Reed’s use of printed circuit boards. Reed, col. 8, ll. 1-8 and 39-33. Note, however, that the skill in the art in 1996 is not dispositive of whether the proposed simplification would have been obvious in 2006. 4 The skill in the art in 2006, including the art’s general understanding of media switching controls, is reflected by the Specification’s lack of in-depth examples or explanations of the switching control located within Appellant’s Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 7 Finally, because the CCU 29/ESU 22 constitutes a user device for controlling passenger telecom and media systems (Reed, col. 14, ll. 35-64), it would have been obvious to mount the CCU 29/ESU 22 to a seat used by flight crew for control (e.g., overriding) of these systems. And, at the very least, there is nothing unexpected about mounting a user device to a seat in general. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (citation and quotation omitted)). Claims 5, 7, and 9 Claims 5, 7, and 9 depend from claim 1 and are directed to: mere simplifications for data communication (claims 5 and 7); and a mere duplication of parts (claim 9). Claim 5 merely adds a second databus including optical fiber. We take official notice that optical databuses were a well understood alternative to other signal carriers at the time of Appellants’ invention. See e.g., EP 1176740 A2, “Self powered data communication optical fiber cable extender” (1995).5 Thus, the substitution of an optical fiber databus for central device 170 (see e.g., Spec., p. 10, ll. 9-13; p. 11, ll. 3-6); that is, reflected by Appellants’ implicit belief that such examples and explanations were not needed to disclose an enabled switching control for the present invention. 5 Note that we cite this document only as evidence of the skill in the art. We make no determination of whether it would have been obvious to implement Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 8 another signal carrier would have been prima facie obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”)(citation omitted); Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. There is no evidence before us, on the other hand, that such a substitution would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162 (citation omitted). Claim 7 merely adds a second wireless databus. We take official notice that wireless databuses were a well understood alternative to other signal carriers at the time of Appellants’ invention. See e.g., WO 2003052606 A1, “Wireless data communication bus system” (2003).6 Thus, the substitution of a wireless databus for another signal carrier of Reed would have been prima facie obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. There is no evidence before us, on the other hand, that such a substitution would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Claim 9 merely adds another media unit similar to claim 1’s media unit. For the reasons presented with respect to the new grounds of rejection for claim 1, it would have been obvious to mount a second CCU 29/ESU 22 to a seat used by the flight crew. Note also “[i]t is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and the reference’s particularly disclosed “optical fiber cable extender” within Reed’s cited embodiment. 6 Note that we cite this document only as evidence of the skill in the art. We make no determination of whether it would have been obvious to implement the reference’s particularly disclosed “wireless data communication bus” within Reed’s cited embodiment. Appeal 2011-004072 Application 11/556,486 9 unexpected result is produced[.]” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960). No such result has been presented. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-25 is reversed. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 under § 103 as unpatentable over Reed. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review” and that Appellants must, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, exercise one of the following two options to avoid termination of this appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner . . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation