Ex Parte Abraham et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 25, 2016

13383390 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/383,390 01/10/2012 22879 7590 04/27/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Benjamin Abraham 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82919300 2630 EXAMINER NATNAEL,PAULOS M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN ABRAHAM, ROBERT CAMPBELL, YANCY CHEN, and ROBERT CAMPESI Appeal2014-008069 Application 13/383,390 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-15, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP ("HPDC") as the real party in interest. HPDC is a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company. The general or managing partner of HPDC is HPQ Holdings, LLC. App. Br. 3 Appeal2014-008069 Application 13/383,390 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a mixer to transmit audiovisual and computer data. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a computing system with memory to store audiovisual data; and a mixer connected to the computer system and including: a first input to receive audiovisual data on a first channel from a content provider; a second input to receive computer data; and an output to transmit the audiovisual data on the first channel and transmit the computer data on at least one second channel assigned by the mixer, wherein the mixer assigns different channels to different files of the computer data. THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Marc11yit:z .........................................â€¢.. Y~ .. ~997/9~.?9~90 .. Al ........â€¢... Qc;t'. .. ~.?, .. ~.997 ..... . Aoki ......................................................â€¢.. Y~ .. ~A~8,7~4.I3~ ...................â€¢.. Jl1ly.3Q,.~Q13 .. . THE REJECTION Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcuvitz in view of Aoki. Final Act. 3-7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider 2 Appeal2014-008069 Application 13/383,390 all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-15. The Examiner finds Marcuvitz teaches all of the limitations of claim I-including the use of computer data---except for "wherein the mixer assigns different channels to different files of the computer data." Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds assigning different channels to different files would have been obvious because it was taught in the prior art. Final Act. 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds the digital mixer assigns the channel indicated by the layer data corresponding to the selected layer. Id. Based on the modification of Marcuvitz in view of Aoki, the Examiner finds the prior art teaches the wherein limitation. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue Marcuvitz does not teach assigning different channels to different computer files. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue Aoki is directed to audio signals, not computer files and, therefore, it cannot process different computer files or assign different computer files to different channels. App. Br. 9-10. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In the Final Action, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Marcuvitz teaches using computer data and inputting it into a mixer (Final Act. 3--4) 3 Appeal2014-008069 Application 13/383,390 while Aoki teaches assigning different files to different channels (Final Act. 4 ). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the combination of the teaching of the two references teaches the disputed claim limitation. Final Act. 4. Appellants' arguments, which focus on the individual references as opposed to the combined teaching of the references, do not persuade us the Examiner erred. It is irrelevant whether Aoki teaches computer data/files because the Examiner did not rely on the reference for that teaching in the Final Action. 2 It is similarly irrelevant that Marcuvitz does not teach assigning different computer files to different channels because the Examiner did not rely on the reference for that teaching. Instead, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner's finding in the Final Action (pages 3--4) regarding the combined teaching of the references as our own. We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Aoki is limited to audio data and does not apply to audiovisual data as required by claim 1. As discussed above, the Examiner's findings are based on the broad teaching in Aoki on assigning different channels. Therefore, it does not matter that the reference uses only audio data and not audiovisual data. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claims 7 and 13, which are argued on the same grounds, and dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14, and 15, which are not argued separately. 2 We have considered Appellants' argument in the Reply Brief regarding whether Aoki teaches mixing computer data. See Reply Br. 4--5. Because we do not rely on the Examiner's findings from the Answer, we do not reach the respective Appellants' argument directed to those findings. 4 Appeal2014-008069 Application 13/383,390 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5