Ex Parte Morrison

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

10011145 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HUGH BOYD MORRISON
____________

Appeal 2009-012751
Application 10/011,145
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-15 and 17-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application since claim 16 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-012751
Application 10/011,145

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a system, method, and apparatus for
assigning a particular broadcaster or channel type as a home starting point or
channel in a television signal receiver when the receiver is turned on (see
Spec. 2:12-22).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of providing a home channel in a video
apparatus, comprising the steps of:
storing in said video apparatus a selected channel label
corresponding to a provider, said selected channel label being selected
by a first source to represent the home channel;
acquiring channel information from a second source different
from the first source;
determining from the acquired channel information, a broadcast
channel frequency corresponding to the selected channel label;
automatically tuning to the home channel as an initially tuned
channel each time said video apparatus is turned on by tuning to the
broadcast channel frequency corresponding to the selected channel
label; and
if the video apparatus has been unplugged, repeating the
acquiring and determining steps after the video apparatus is plugged
back in so that the video apparatus continues to automatically tune to
the broadcast channel frequency corresponding to the selected channel
label each time the video apparatus is turned on.
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Sirazi US 4,527,194 Jul. 2, 1985
Testin US 4,776,038 Oct. 4, 1988
Yoshida US 5,191,423 Mar. 2, 1993
Chaney US 5,867,207 Feb. 2, 1999
Naimpally US 6,020,880 Feb. 1, 2000
Appeal 2009-012751
Application 10/011,145

3
Macare WO 00/49802 Aug. 24, 2000
Knee US 2006/0242665 A1 Oct. 26, 2006

Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knee, Chaney, and
Naimpally.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaney, Testin, Knee, and Naimpally.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaney, Sirazi, Knee, and Naimpally.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaney, Testin, Knee, Naimpally, Yoshida.
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaney, Testin, Knee, Naimpally, and Macare.
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaney, Sirazi, Knee, Naimpally, and Macare.
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knee, Chaney, Naimpally, and Macare.

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. We 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 (see Ans. 15-
20) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. However, with respect to the
Appeal 2009-012751
Application 10/011,145

4
claims argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 over
Knee, Chaney, and Naimpally
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims
as obvious because: (1) one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Knee and Chaney to arrive at the subject matter of
claim 1 (Br. 7-8); and (2) the teachings of Naimpally related to updating a
television clock at power-up fail to remedy the deficiencies of Knee and
Chaney (Br. 8-10).
First, we find the Examiner’s stated rationale for the proposed
combination to be reasonable and based on “an apparent reason to combine
the known elements in the fashion claimed” which includes an “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007).
Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings of multiple patents,
the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Id.
In the present case, the Examiner found that Knee, in paragraphs 92
and 93, discloses selecting a channel as the home channel and Chaney, in
column 3, lines 22-67, describes acquiring channel information and the
corresponding broadcast frequencies which may be used to dynamically
assign channels to frequencies while maintaining the same channel label for
the user (Ans. 16). Contrary to Appellant’s position that Chaney has nothing
to do with the concept of a home channel (Br. 7), we find the Examiner’s
Appeal 2009-012751
Application 10/011,145

5
articulated rationale (Ans. 17-18) to be sufficient to justify combining the
feature of a home channel in Knee with Chaney’s program guide which is
transmitted and repeated periodically in order to acquire a specific program
(see Chaney; col. 3, l. 57 – col. 4, l. 15).
Second, we also agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding the teachings of Naimpally (see Ans. 18-19) and find that the
combination of the applied prior art as a whole discloses or suggests the
claimed steps for selecting the home channel including steps related to
updating data and automatically connecting to the Electronic Program Guide
(EPG) at power-up. As the Examiner finds (id.), Naimpally provides for
updating the EPG information including the clock at predetermined times
such that the updated information is used automatically at power-up (see
Naimpally, col. 4, ll. 34-49).
Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
Rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15 over Chaney, Testin,
Knee, and Naimpally
Appellant repeats similar arguments discussed above regarding the
teachings of Chaney, Knee, and Naimpally (Br. 11-13) and asserts that
Testin, like Chaney, is non-analogous art and fails to disclose or suggest
providing a home channel recited in claim 1 (Br. 11-12). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Testin (see col. 2, ll. 9-18) regarding
automatically tuning to specific broadcast or cable channels (Ans. 8-9).
Based on the same discussion above and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 16-
19), we further agree with the Examiner’s stated reasoning for the proposed
Appeal 2009-012751
Application 10/011,145

6
combination (Ans. 9) and find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
Rejections of Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 19-21 over Chaney,
Knee, and Naimpally in various combinations with Testin,
Sirazi, Yoshida, or Macare
In addition to relying on the arguments presented for claim 1, which
were found to be unpersuasive, Appellant contends that Testin, Sirazi,
Yoshida, and Macare, like Chaney, fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of
Chaney/Knee/Naimpally combination (Br. 13-20). We agree with the
Examiner’s stated position and response (Ans. 11-15, 19-20). For the same
reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting these claims.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-21 as being obvious.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-21 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc