11922362 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

Nori, Claudio

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 27, 2020

11922362 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

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. 11/922,362 01/10/2008 Claudio Nori 11870001US 5501 62008 7590 07/27/2020 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC 345 South Patrick Street ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER TELAN, MICHAEL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2020 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): docket@maierandmaier.com maierandmaier_PAIR@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CLAUDIO NORI ____________________ Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 44, 45, and 47–49, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Dec. 17, 2007 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Nov. 13, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 27, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Feb. 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Claudio Nori as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 2 We affirm. II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates an appliance including electronic circuits integrated with a television receiver screen for processing and displaying various high-resolution multi-media operative functions. Spec. 1:29–33. As depicted in Figure 1 below, signal selector (18) is directly connected to video processor (14) to thereby transmit video data to video processor (14) without going through the BUS (10) for display on television receiver screen (15). Id. at 10:10–16. Figure 1, discussed above and reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of electronic control and management circuits (5) of various operative programs and functions, which are set and displayed on television receiver screen (15). Spec. 5:10–13. Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 3 Illustrative Claim Claim 49 is independent, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 49. An appliance adapted for processing a plurality of high resolution multi-media programs and functions, said appliance comprising: main electronic control means including a master microprocessor (9) adapted to be set in advance to control and manage digital and analog data and data of programs and functions for personal computers and television receivers received in and transmitted from said appliance and being operatively connected to a voltage supply unit (12) and a BUS control line (10); a video processor (14) operatively connected to a television receiver screen (15) and to said BUS control line (10); an audio processor (16) operatively connected to sound transducers(47, 48) and to said BUS control line (10); a signal selector (18) adapted for receiving analog and digital video and audio signals comprising radio signals transmitted from external transmitters and/or signals transmitted via cables, wires and optic fibers communicating with audio and video devices and audio and video recording and reproducing devices, said signal selector (18) being operatively connected to said video processor (14) and said audio processor (16), and being adapted for selecting and introducing received analog and digital video and audio signals and transmitting the video signals to said video processor (14) for display on said television receiver screen (15) and the audio signals to said audio processor (16) for reproducing the sounds in said sound transducers (47, 48), and being operatively connected via said BUS control line (10) to said master microprocessor (9) for processing and recognizing said received analog and digital video and audio signals; . . . said master microprocessor (9) being further set in advance to manage and process corresponding response output Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 4 data derived from the managed and processed data inputted to said microprocessor and which includes corresponding images and corresponding sounds and which is adapted to control the carrying out of the operative programs and functions which have been derived from the processed and recognized analog and digital video and audio signals received from the signal selector (18), and adapted to control the carrying out of the operative programs and functions which have been set by the audio control circuit (7) and the audio/video electronic control circuit (8) and to control said video processor (14) and audio processor (16) and the external electronic appliances and/or systems comprising the external transmitters and the audio and video devices and audio and video recording and reproducing devices communicating with said signal selector (18), the audio devices of various kind communicating with the inputs/outputs (62) peripheral devices of said multiplexer switch (61) and the of various kind communicating with the inputs/outputs (71) of said access gateway (70), and to transmit said corresponding response output data so as to display the corresponding images and reproduce the corresponding sounds into the television receiver screen (15) and sound transducers (47, 48) of the present appliance and of the external electronic appliances and/or systems communicating with signal selector (18), multiplexer switch (61) and access gateway (70). Appeal Br. 15–19 (Claims Appendix). III. REFERENCES RELIED UPON The Examiner relies upon the following references.3 Name Number Publ’d/Issued Schindler US 5,995,155 Nov. 30, 1999 Nguyen US 2004/0155791 A1 Aug. 12, 2004 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 5 IV. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 44, 45, and 47–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schindler and Nguyen. Final Act. 3–16. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8–11 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–4.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Office Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3–17; Ans. 3–5. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Regarding the rejection of claim 49, Appellant argues the Examiner’s proposed combination of Schindler and Nguyen does not teach or suggest a video processor connected to a signal selector. Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues that the disputed claim limitation requires a direct connection between the video processor and the signal selector to thereby transmit the video data to the video processor without going through the BUS. Id. at 8–9. Therefore, Appellant submits that Schindler’s disclosure of video data going through the PCI Bus for transmission to the VGA card vitiates the claim language. Id. at 9. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012). Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 6 Independent claim 49 recites in relevant part “said signal selector being operatively connected to said video processor and said audio processor (16), and being adapted for selecting and introducing received analog and digital video and audio signals and transmitting the video signals to said video processor for display on said television receiver screen (15).” Claim App. We agree with the Examiner that although Appellant’s written description, describing Figure 1, discusses a direct connection between the video processor and the signal selector, the claim is not so limiting. Ans. 4. As drafted, the claim recitation of a connection between the signal selector and the video processor to facilitate the transmission of video data encompasses both a direct connection and an indirect connection between the devices. Id. The claim merely requires that the signal selector and the video processor be “operatively connected,” not necessarily directly connected. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Schindler’s disclosure of a connection between VGA card (318) and receiver (316)/modem (322), albeit indirectly through PCI bus (312), teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Schindler, Fig. 3). For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 49. Regarding the rejection of claims 44, 45, 47, and 48, Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claim 49. As such, claims 44, 45, 47, and 48 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-002812 Application 11/922,362 7 VI. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 44, 45, and 47–49. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 44, 45, 47–49 103 Schindler, Nguyen 44, 45, 47–49 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).