Ex Parte Resner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2012

11149929 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 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.
11/149,929 06/10/2005 Benjamin I. Resner F-20 1394
21253 7590 12/26/2012
Charles G. Call
361 Wild Coffee Ln
Marco Island, FL 34145-1849
EXAMINER
PAN, YONGJIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENJAMIN I. RESNER, DAVID L. ROSE, NABEEL HYATT,
ROBERT DREDGE and PRITESH V. GANDHI

Appeal 2010-007713
Application 11/149,929
Technology Center 2100
____________

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 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electronic weather display
device which presents a five day forecast transmitted via a commercial
paging service. See Spec. 22, Abstract of the Disclosure.

Appeal 2010-007713
Application 11/149,929
2

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A battery operated display device for displaying a periodically
updated representation of each of a plurality of variable
quantities, said battery operated display device comprising, in
combination,

a radio receiver for receiving information bearing radio signals
broadcasted from a remotely located transmitting antenna, said
radio signals containing periodically transmitted data packets
each containing one or more data values each of which
specifies the current updated value of one of said variable
quantities,

a display panel for continuously displaying a mosaic of
separately controlled active visual elements, each of which is
continuously visible to a viewer and each of which at any given
time displays a selected one of a limited set of predetermined
visual forms representing one of said data values, and

a controller coupled to said radio receiver and to said display
panel for translating said data values in said data packets into
control signals supplied to said display panel to each of said
active visual elements to display a selected one of said
predetermined visual forms representing the current value of
one of said variable quantities.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Lamb US 6,181,324 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Hepp US 6,449,219 B1 Sep. 10, 2002
Kelly US 6,823,263 B1 Nov. 23, 2004

Appeal 2010-007713
Application 11/149,929
3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Lamb and Hepp. Ans. 3-14.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Lamb, Hepp, and Kelly. Ans. 13-14

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issues to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Lamb and Hepp, collectively, teach or suggest a radio
receiver for receiving information bearing radio signals
broadcasted from a remotely located transmitting antenna; said
radio signals containing periodically transmitted data packets each
containing one or more data values each of which specifies the
current updated value of one of said variable quantities; and a
display panel for continuously displaying a mosaic of separately
controlled active visual elements, each of which is continuously
visible to a viewer and each of which at any given time displays a
selected one of a limited set of predetermined visual forms
representing one of said data values?
2. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 by
finding that Lamb and Hepp, collectively, teach or suggest that the
remotely located transmitting antenna is one of multiple antennas

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 21,
2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 19, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007713
Application 11/149,929
4
in a network that simulcasts data packets over a large geographical
area?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 by ignoring express limitations within the claim which are not
shown or suggested within the cited references. Specifically, Appellants
argue that neither Lamb nor Hepp discloses “a radio receiver for receiving
information bearing radio signals broadcasted from a remotely located
transmitting antenna, said radio signals containing periodically transmitted
data packets each containing one or more data values each of which
specifies the current updated value of one of said variable quantities” (claim
1), noting that Lamb discloses the use of a “voice quality telephone
transmission.” App. Br. 4. Appellants do acknowledge that Lamb teaches
that “other means can be employed including cellular, short wave, wireless,
radio frequency, etc.” (Col. 4, Lines 36-39). App. Br. 4.
Further, Appellants argue that the cited references fail to show or
suggest “a display panel for continuously displaying a mosaic of separately
controlled active visual elements, each of which is continuously visible to a
viewer and each of which at any given time displays a selected one of a
limited set of predetermined visual forms representing one of said data
values” (claim 1). Appellants do note that Lamb discloses a display device
for displaying a variety of information; however, Appellants argue that such
a display does not suggest a “mosaic” as claimed. App. Br. 4.
The Examiner finds that Lamb discloses a communications interface
116, within Figure 3, for detecting and receiving broadcast signals. Ans. 14-
15. As noted above, Lamb also teaches that communication may occur
Appeal 2010-007713
Application 11/149,929
5
utilizing radio signals. The Examiner also finds that the concept of data
packets as units of information transmitted from one device to another is
well known to those of skill in this art. Id.
The Examiner also finds that both Lamb and Hepp disclose display
elements which contain separately controlled active visual elements. Id. at
16.
We find the Examiner’s arguments persuasive, particularly in view of
the Appellants’ failure to provide any special definition for a “mosaic of
separately controlled active visual elements” (claim 1). Appellants’
Specification at Paragraph [0012] describes the “mosaic” as a “flat panel
display, such as an LCD, electronic ink or electrophoretic display panel”
where “individual visual elements of the display are energized or
deenergized by the control signals.”
Appellants have submitted no specific arguments which distinguish
the “mosaic” display of their claimed invention from the displays of Lamb
or Hepp.
Consequently, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1
and those claims which depend therefrom and which were not argued
separately, under § 103 over Lamb and Hepp.
With regard to claim 2, Appellants argue that the cited references fail
to show or suggest “said remotely located transmitting antenna is one of
multiple antennas in a network that simulcasts data packets over a large
geographical area,” despite noting that Lamb teaches the use of radio
frequency communication. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that despite such
teaching Lamb fails to explicitly suggest the use of data packets “transmitted
from one of multiple antennas in a network that simulcasts packets over a
large geographical area” as set forth in claim 2. Id.
Appeal 2010-007713
Application 11/149,929
6
The Examiner finds that, as noted above, Lamb discloses the use of
radio frequency communication and that it is well known that radio
transmission involves multiple antennas that simulcast data packets. Ans.
17.
We concur with the Examiner, particularly in view of Appellants’
admission that their invention utilizes “a known FlexTM type radio paging
protocol that simulcasts packets from multiple antennas.” App. Br. 6.
It is beyond cavil that the use of a known technology, in the manner
that such technology is intended to be utilized, cannot be a successful basis
for an argument of patentability.
We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2,
and those claims which depend therefrom which were not argued separately,
under § 103 over Lamb and Hepp.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 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

peb