Ex Parte Thai

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 15, 2010

10409794 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 15, 2010)

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.
10/409,794 04/09/2003 Hung D. Thai DP-308617 6066
22851 7590 11/16/2010
DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC
M/C 480-410-202
PO BOX 5052
TROY, MI 48007
EXAMINER
FAULK, DEVONA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte HUNG D. THAI
_____________

Appeal 2009-008243
Application 10/409,794
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT E.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008243
Application 10/409,794

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 17 through 21.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of determining and displaying
the content of a random access media. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellant’s
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. An audio system, comprising:
a random access media reader configured to read a removable
random access media, said removable random access media having
audio data files stored in both playlists and folders on removable
random access media;
a processor coupled to said random access media reader and
having software configured to determine a number of said audio data
files and a number of said folders on said removable random access
media;
an audio receiver having a radio tuner, said audio receiver
connected to the processor for playing said audio data files; and
a user interface including user input devices and a display
connected to the processor and said software being further configured
to display said number of audio data files and said number of said
folders on said user display before user activation of any input device
and before playing any of said audio data files.

REFERENCES
Utsui US 6,442,475 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Benyamin US 2003/0086699 A1 May 8, 2003

2

Appeal 2009-008243
Application 10/409,794

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 17 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benyamin in view of Utsui.
Answer 3-5.
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant argues:
[N]one of the applied references teach or suggest an audio system
which automatically reads compressed format media inserted into the
random access reader to glean the size and organization of the audio
data files stored therein and displays the file count and organization
(by number of files and number of folders) prior to any operator
inputs or play of any audio file.

Brief 7. Specifically, Appellant agrees with the Examiner’s determination
that Benyamin does not disclose this feature and argues that Utsui “fails to
disclose or suggest the automatic reading of compressed format audio to
separately ascertain the number of files and the number of folders and to
display that information without operator intervention.” Brief 7.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection by these
arguments. Initially, we note that representative claim 1 does not recite
reading compressed format media, or that the reading is to glean the size and
organization; as such, Appellant’s argument is premised upon an unduly
arrow claim interpretation. Further, the Examiner has found that Benyamin
teaches an audio system where audio files are stored in both playlists and
folders on a removable random access media. Answer 3. The Examiner has
also found that Utsui teaches an audio system where when a music CD
(random access media) is inserted, the user is presented with information
3

Appeal 2009-008243
Application 10/409,794

about the files stored on the disk before playing any of the audio data files.
Answer 4. Appellant does not dispute either of these findings, which we
therefore accept as correct. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
the references collectively suggest a system to automatically read data
representing the numbers of files and folders from the random access media
and provide a display of that data before user activation of any input device
and before playing any of the audio data files.
Appellant further argues that the skilled artisan would not combine
Benyamin with Utsui as they perform “totally different functions and are
classified in different art areas.” Brief 7. Additionally Appellant argues:
Furthermore, even as combined, Benyamin et al. and Utsui et al.,
individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the audio
system and method of claims 1 and 6, specifically incorporating a
disappearing rear illuminated icon defined by an imaging medium
disposed behind a two-way mirror positionally juxtaposed with a
vehicle sideview mirror.

Brief 8. Initially we note that Appellant’s arguments directed to an icon on a
two-way mirror are not persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope
with the claims. Appellant’s arguments directed to the references being in
two art areas is not persuasive, as discussed above both references teach
audio systems which make use of random access memory devices which
store music data.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments presented in the Brief dated August 27,
2008, have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4

Appeal 2009-008243
Application 10/409,794

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 17
through 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

ELD

DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC
M/C 480-410-202
PO BOX 5052
TROY, MI 48007
5