Ex Parte Erhart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

11303820 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GEORGE WILLIAM ERHART, VALENTINE C. MATULA, and
DAVID JOSEPH SKIBA
____________________

Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20 (App. Br. 6). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to telecommunications in general
and, more particularly, to the delivery of one or more content streams to a
telecommunications terminal based on the execution state of the terminal
(Spec. ¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1and 7 are exemplary:
1. A method comprising transmitting a signal of media
type T to a telecommunications terminal only when:
(i) said telecommunications terminal has a transducer
whose output is of said media type T, and
(ii) no applications are currently executing at said
telecommunications terminal that use said transducer to
generate an output signal.
7. A method comprising:
(a) receiving at time T an indication that an application
that generates an output signal of media type M is started at a
telecommunications terminal; and
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

3
(b) when a content stream is being received at said
telecommunications terminal at said time T, stopping the
transmission of said content stream if, and only if, said content
stream is of said media type M.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Ahluwalia US 2005/0278767 A1 Dec. 15, 2005
Mehrabani-Farsi US 2005/0216334 A1 Sep. 29, 2005
Frank JP 2000-092463 Mar. 31, 2000

Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Frank.
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frank in view of Mehrabani-Farsi.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahluwalia in view of Mehrabani-Farsi.
Claims 7-9 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated Ahluwalia.

II. ISSUE
The first dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has
erred in finding that:
1) Frank expressly or inherently teaches “transmitting a signal of
media type T” to a telecommunications terminal only when the terminal “has
a transducer whose output is of said media type T” (claim 1, emphasis
added); and
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

4
2) Ahluwalia expressly or inherently teaches receiving “an indication
that an application that generates an output signal of media type M is started
at a telecommunications terminal” and “stopping a transmission of a content
stream received at the telecommunications terminal if, and only if, the
content stream is of said media type M” (claim 7, emphasis added).

II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants’ Specification
1. According to Appellants, exemplary embodiments of a
“transducer” include a speaker or a video display (Spec. ¶ [0011]).
Frank
2. Frank discloses a video telephone 5 with a first channel 7 for voice
transmission, and a second channel 8 for image transmission (Abstract;
Figure 1).
3. When a calling party who is using a video telephone makes a call
to a called party who does not own a video telephone, a voice channel is
used for the conversation (¶ [0007]), and a video channel is used for picture
transmission from an information server to the calling member’s video
telephone so that the calling member can receive a video advertisement from
the information server over the vacant video channel (id.).
4. The video channel is also used for picture transmission from the
information server to the calling member’s video telephone so that the
calling member can receive picture information of the voice message from
the information server over the vacant video channel (¶ [0012]).
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

5
Ahluwalia
5. Ahluwalia discloses a media computer 200 that integrates
television and telephone management operations in a single system (p. 2,
¶ [0033]; Fig. 1).
6. When a call request is received over telephone network, an
incoming call message is sent to a display for a television system (¶ [0047]),
and when a call accept message is sent via a remote control, a mute message
is sent to the television system to mute television audio information from a
television signal (id.).
7. The telephone audio information is sent to the television speaker
after a mute message was sent to mute the television audio information (Fig.
5; ¶ [0047]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C §102(b)
Appellants contend that “Frank does not mention anything about a
terminal's transducers - let alone transmitting a signal of media type T to the
terminal only when the terminal has the appropriate transducer and the
transducer is not being used by any applications at the terminal” (App. Br.
12). However, the Examiner finds that Frank discloses a “video telephone”
that “must have transducers such as display for displaying image and
speaker for reproducing voice” (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds that Frank
further teaches that when “a member of another side does not own a video
phone (i.e. just a regular telephone with transducers like speaker and
microphone), a voice channel is used for the conversation of a telephone, but
video advertisement is still supplied to a video channel via an information
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

6
server” (id.). The Examiner explains that the “video telephone of the side
receiving a voice call has a transducer such as display that is not in use
because no videophone application is being used” (id.).
We find no error with the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Frank
discloses a calling party having a video telephone with a first channel for
audio transmission and a second channel for video transmission (FF 2),
wherein if a called party does not have a video telephone, the voice channel
is used for the conversation and the video channel is used for picture
transmission from an information server to the calling party’s video
telephone so that the calling party can receive picture information (FF 3-4).
That is, Frank discloses transmitting a signal of a video media type to the
calling party’s terminal only when the terminal has an output that is of the
video media type.
Furthermore, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Frank’s
video telephone “must have transducers such as [a] display for displaying
image and [a] speaker for reproducing voice” (Ans. 9). In other words, a
skilled artisan would have understood that a telephone must inherently have
a speaker to play audio information and that a video telephone must
inherently have a video display to show video information. See Transclean
Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Since Frank’s video telephone terminal has a speaker whose output is audio
and a video display whose output is video, we find Frank to disclose
transducers whose output is of video and audio media type. In fact, even
Appellants admit that speakers and video displays are examples of
transducers (FF 1).
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

7
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Frank teaches
“transmitting a signal of media type T ” to a telecommunications terminal
only when the terminal “has a transducer whose output is of said media type
T ” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Frank.
Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 2, 4, 5, and 15-20
separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 12-14), and merely repeat that
“Frank does not mention anything about a terminal's transducers” for claim
11 and claims 12-14 falling therewith (App. Br. 13). As discussed above
with respect to claim 1, we find no deficiency with respect to Frank.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants also have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2, 4, 5, and 11-20 over Frank.
Rejection of Claims 7-9 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellants contend that Ahluwalia does not teach “receiving an
indication that an application that generates output of media type M is
started at a terminal, and stopping the transmission of a content stream
received at the terminal when and only when the content stream is also of
media type M” (Ap. Br. 14). In particular, Appellants contend that in
Ahluwalia, when the audio portion is muted, “both the video and audio
portions of the television signal are still transmitted to the terminal” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that Ahluwalia teaches “(a) receiving at
time T an indication that an application (reads on application that generates
TV audio signal) generates an output signal of media type M (reads on TV
audio signal) is started at a telecommunication terminal (reads on 106, fig.
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

8
1), and (b) when a content stream is being received at the telecommunication
terminal at the time T, stopping the transmission of the content stream (reads
on stopping the reproduction TV audio signal through speakers) if and only
if the content stream is of the media type M (reads on telephone audio
signal” (Ans. 12). We find no error with the Examiner’s findings.
Ahluwalia discloses integrating television and telephone management
operations (FF 5), wherein when a call request is received by a television
controller over a telephone network, a television audio signal is muted and
the television speakers play the telephone audio signal (FF. 6-7). We find
Ahluwalia’s speakers to comprise a “terminal” wherein, when the TV audio
is being received at the speakers/terminal, the content is muted/stopped if it
is of audio media type. Thus, we find Frank to disclose a call
request/indication that an application that generates an output signal of audio
media type is started at a speakers/terminal and stopping a transmission of a
content stream received at the speakers/terminal if and only if the content
stream is of the audio media type.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 over Ahluwalia. Appellants do not
provide arguments for claims 8 and 9 separate from those of claim 7 (App.
Br. 14); accordingly, claims 8 and 9 fall with claim 7.
As for claim 12-14, Appellants contend that the claims “depend on
claim 11,” merely repeat the language of claim 11, and contend that
“[n]owhere does Ahluwalia teach or suggest, alone or in combination with
the other references what claim 11 recites” (App. Br. 15). However, a
Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

9
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3-4 (BPAI Aug.
10, 2009) (informative). Accordingly, we find that Appellants also have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) over Ahluwalia.
Rejection of Claims 3, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As to claims 3 and 6, Appellants contend that “[l]ike Frank, nowhere
does Mehrabani-Farsi teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the
other references, what independent claim 1 recites” (Ap. Br. 15). However,
as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no deficiencies with
respect to Frank. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3 and 6, depending from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Frank in further view of Mehrabani-Farsi.
Appellants provide no argument with respect to claim 10.
Accordingly, we also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ahluwalia in further view of Mehrabani-
Farsi.

Appeal 2010-005401
Application 11/303,820

10
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 7-9 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
claims 3, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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