Ex Parte Fernandez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201713285930 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/285,930 10/31/2011 Dennis S. Fernandez FERN-P003O 1128 22877 7590 12/14/2017 FERNANDEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLP 1175 Osborn Avenue Atherton, CA 94027 EXAMINER HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2017 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): legalassistant @ iploft. com jmharris@iploft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ and IRENE HU Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 Technology Center 2400 Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 23 and 26—30.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to subscriber video conferencing during program delivery. Spec. 2,11. 2-4. Claim 23 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 23. A mobile digital television and gaming advertising method comprising the steps of: enabling multiple mobile digital television and gaming receiver conferencing between multiple mobile digital television and gaming subscribers; monitoring program and data viewing of a mobile digital television and gaming subscriber and mobile digital television and gaming conferencing activity between mobile digital television and gaming subscribers with a mobile digital television and gaming controller, wherein the mobile digital television and gaming controller authorizes and causes certain mobile digital television and gaming receivers to be added or removed dynamically from one or more mobile digital television and gaming video conferencing active set or selected logical group, as well as restricting selected mobile digital television and gaming receivers from viewing certain mobile digital television and gaming program and/or data; and 1 Our Decision makes reference to the Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 17, 2015), and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 29, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 4, 2015), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 17, 2014). 2 Claims 1—22 and 24—25 were cancelled. Claim 31 is currently withdrawn. 2 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 directing personalized, targeted, incentive, and advertising messages through an integrated mobile digital television and gaming delivery system comprising both mobile digital television and gaming program and data to multiple mobile digital television and gaming subscriber receivers, wherein the mobile digital television and gaming data comprises internet data, wherein the mobile digital television and gaming program comprises digital television program. REFERENCES Yu US 5,343 Moncreiff US 5,828 Lehtinen US 6,172 Enns US 6,658 Hendricks US 6,738 ,240 Aug. 30, 1994 ,839 Oct. 27, 1998 ,673 B1 Jan. 9, 2001 ,010 B1 Dec. 2, 2003 ,978 B1 May 18,2004 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 23 and 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen. Final Act. 3. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendricks, Moncreiff, Lehtinen, and Enns. Final Act. 7. ISSUES ISSUE 1 — Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen to reject independent claims 23 and 26-28? ISSUE 2 — Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen teaches “restricting selected mobile digital television and gaming receivers from viewing certain mobile digital 3 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 television and gaming program and/or data,” as recited in independent claim 23. ISSUE 3 — Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen teaches “wherein the mobile digital television and gaming controller authorizes and causes certain mobile digital television and gaming receivers to be added or removed dynamically from one or more mobile digital television and gaming video conferencing active set or selected logical group,” as recited in independent claim 23? ISSUE 4 — Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen teaches “enabling a mobile digital television and gaming controller to serve as a mobile digital television and gaming system headend,” as recited in independent claim 28? ISSUE 5 — Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Moncreiff, Lehtinen, and Enns teaches “a mobile digital television and gaming processor,” as recited in independent claim 29, and similarly recited in independent claim 30? ISSUE 6 — Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Moncreiff, Lehtinen, and Enns teaches “a network interface configured for [Ethernet connection capabilities,” as recited in independent claim 29, and similarly recited in independent claim 30? 4 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 ANALYSIS Claim 23 ISSUE 1 — As detailed below, Appellants raise numerous arguments asserting that the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen is improper. Independent claim 23 recites a “mobile” system. App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds the combination of Hendricks, Yu, and Moncreiff teaches the claimed invention but for the system being mobile. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Lehtinen for providing increased mobility (see id.). Appellants present the following arguments (1—5) regarding the Examiner’s combination relying on Lehtinen’s teaching of mobility: 1. Appellants assert that Lehtinen is “non-analogous” art. App. Br. 9—10. We are not persuaded. Firstly, Appellants’ statement does not explain sufficiently why Lehtinen is non-analogous to the invention’s field of endeavor and therefore amounts to attorney argument without supporting evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (stating that attorney’s arguments cannot take the place of evidence). Secondly, “[wjhether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two criteria have evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658—59. Here, the Examiner finds Lehtinen is directed to “a mobile environment which one of ordinary skill would clearly recognize is in the field of 5 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 [Appellants’] endeavor (i.e., mobile TV) and also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (i.e., providing mobile digital television).” Ans. 4. We thus find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings that Lehtinen is analogous art. 2. Appellants argue Hendricks fails to disclose how the network controller communicates in a mobile environment. See App. Br. 9. Appellants argue Hendricks individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Hendricks, Lehtinen, Yu, and Moncreiff. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). As correctly pointed out by the Examiner, “Hendricks was not relied upon to teach a mobile digital television system. Lehtinen was relied upon to teach . . . mobile.” Ans. 3. We are not persuaded, as the rejection is based upon the combination that includes Lehtinen, and the Appellants did not argue the combination. 3. Appellants further argue the combination of Lehtinen with Hendricks, Yu, and Moncreiff fails to perform the claimed function. See App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 4—8. Specifically, Appellants argue the combination is “technically dysfunctional” because Lehtinen’s unidirectional communication system would not support the bidirectional communication required by Hendricks’ network. Id. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion that Lehtinen has only unidirectional communication, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Lehtinen teaches bidirectional communications. See Ans. 4—5, citing Lehtinen col. 2,11. 11—24 (“bidirectional at least to a limited 6 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 extend[sic]”); also see Final Act. 9, citing Lehtinen col. 4,11. 19-22 (“bidirectional system”). Moreover, we note “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention.”); and In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). Rather, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, the rejection is not based on a bodily incorporation of Lehtinen’s mobile system with Hendricks’ broadcast network. Rather, the rejection is based on what the combined teachings of Hendricks (TV broadcasting network) and Lehtinen (mobile subscribers for receiving TV broadcasts) would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants have neither asserted nor provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed combination was beyond the capabilities of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Accordingly, we are not convinced that the Examiner’s combination of Hendricks’ bidirectional broadcast system with Lehtinen’s bidirectional 7 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 mobile system would have would have been technically dysfunctional or otherwise beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ans. 5. 4. Appellants argue that Hendricks and/or Lehtinen teach away from the claimed solution. See Appeal Br. 8—12. We are unpersuaded, as Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence to show that Hendricks and/or Lehtinen teach away from the claimed invention. Appellants do not point to any passages in Hendricks or Lehtinen that “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the use of mobile technology in a digital television and gaming system. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed). Additionally, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding that Hendricks encourages the combination, in that Hendricks teaches using its system with a cellular network. See Ans. 3, citing Hendricks col. 7,11. 45—67 (“cellular networks”). Because Appellants have neither shown that the references teach away from the claimed invention nor addressed the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Hendricks, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner provided insufficient reasoning to combine Hendricks and Lehtinen. See App. Br. 10. Appellants contend “it is not imperative to create the necessity of combining two co-existing technologies with an expectation of success” and there is a “lack of motivation to combine Hendricks with Lehtinen.” Id. We are not persuaded. A determination of obviousness requires “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 8 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In this case, the Examiner finds mobile systems were known, and concludes an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Hendricks with Lehtinen for providing increased mobility. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 3. Appellants have merely provided conclusory statements (see App. Br. 10) without specifically addressing and rebutting the motivation articulated by the Examiner, i.e., “for the purpose of providing increased mobility” (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3). Thus, Appellants fail to provide sufficient arguments and/or evidence demonstrating why the Examiner’s reasoning is erroneous. To the extent Appellants argue there was no reasonable expectation of success in combining Hendricks and Lehtinen (App. Br. 10), the Examiner’s proposed modifications to Hendricks do not appear to be uniquely challenging, and Appellants have not sufficiently explained or provided evidence as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had an expectation of success in making the modifications. See In re O ’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability of success). For the reasons indicated above, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in combining Lehtinen with Hendricks, Yu, and Moncreiff to arrive at a “mobile” system, as required by claim 23. Claim 23 further requires “video” conferencing. App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds Hendricks, Lehtinen, and Moncreiff lack video and relies on Yu. Final Act. 4—5. Appellants argue that Yu is nonanalogous art to video conferencing between mobile subscribers. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 9-10. As discussed above, a reference is deemed analogous if the art is from the same 9 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 field of the inventor’s endeavor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658—659. Here, the Examiner cited Yu to teach video conferencing (see Final Act. 4), which is from the same field of the inventor’s endeavor, i.e., video conferencing during programming. A preponderance of the evidence establishes Yu as analogous art. Appellants argue the combination of Yu with Hendricks, Lehtinen, and Moncreiff is “dysfunctional and fails to function as claimed due to technical difficulties,” because Lehtinen’s unidirectional mobile system would not support Yu’s video conferencing. App. Br. 11—12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also contend that Yu is not properly combinable with Hendricks, Lehtinen, and Moncreiff, because Yu’s system requires a coaxial cable network rather than a mobile network. Id. at 12. Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. As discussed above, Lehtinen discloses a bidirectional system. See Lehtinen col. 2,11. 11—24 and col. 4,11. 19—22 (“bidirectional”). Thus, Appellants’ dysfunctionality argument is based on the incorrect factual assertion that Lehtinen’s system not bidirectional. Further, the test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Here, the Examiner finds Hendricks teaches conferencing in a broadcast network, Yu teaches video conferencing in a coaxial cable network, and Lehtinen teaches communication in a mobile network. See Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner further finds Yu permits modifications and does not preclude mobile video conferencing. Ans. 6. Appellants have not sufficiently argued or shown evidence that the Examiner’s proposed combination, i.e., Yu’s video to Hendricks’ 10 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 conferencing and Lehtinen’s mobile network, is not suggested by the references or beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent Appellants attack the Yu reference individually rather than the combination of Hendricks, Lehtinen, Moncreiff, and Yu references, we agree with the Examiner that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on their combination. Ans. 6 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). Based on the forgoing reasons, Appellants have not shown Examiner error in combining Yu’s video conferencing with Hendricks, Lehtinen, and Moncreiff. ISSUE 2 — Claim 23 also requires a controller “restricting selected . . . receivers” from viewing certain program and/or data. App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds Hendricks’ “controller monitors for authorized (or unauthorized) channel access” to restrict certain receivers. Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 4; see also Hendricks col. 4,11. 1—8 (“polling and automatic report-back cycles occurs frequently enough to allow the network controller to . . . monitor authorized channel access”). Appellants argue Hendricks lacks the function of restricting selected receivers, as Hendricks’ controller does not restrict receivers as “an active process” (App. Br. 11) or “censor pre-defmed program or data classes or titles” (Reply Br. 8). In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the act of monitoring access through “polling and [an] automatic report-back cycle” is “an active process since it requires actively determining if subscribers are authorized.” Ans. 5, citing Hendricks col. 4, 11. 1—8; see also Final Act. 2, citing col. 4,11. 39-41. 11 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 Moreover, Appellants have not effectively argued why the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, of the phrase “restricting selected . . . receivers” requires censoring or would preclude the active channel access monitoring disclosed in Hendricks. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution). Further, we note that claim 23 does not recite “an active process” or “censor pre-defmed program or data classes or titles.” App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 8. As such, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it is incommensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). ISSUE 3 — Claim 23 also recites a controller causing receivers to be “added or removed dynamically” from conferencing. App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds Hendricks, Lehtinen, and Yu lack dynamically adding or removing receivers, and relies on Moncreiff to cure this deficiency. See Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds that Moncreiff s system dynamically adds or removes receivers after a user inputs information (i.e., enters login information or selects Retum/Exit). See Ans. 7. Appellants argue that because Moncreiff requires input such as login information, it does not teach adding or removing “dynamically.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 11—12. Appellants contend “dynamically” should be construed as “without login information.” Id. We are not persuaded. Claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, consistent with Appellants’ disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054. Consistent with its ordinary and 12 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 customary meaning, the Examiner interprets the term “dynamically” to include changing according to or occurring upon user input. See Ans. 7. Moreover, Appellants have not pointed to anywhere in the Specification that would suggest limiting the term “dynamically” to mean without input or login information. See Appeal Br. 13. Because Appellants have not sufficiently argued or provided evidence to the contrary, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “dynamically” to be reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ disclosure. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 23 does not require adding or removing receivers “without login information.” Ans. 7. Accordingly, Appellants are arguing a limitation (i.e., without login information) that does not appear in the claim; hence, the arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope. In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. As such, Appellants have not shown error with respect to the Examiner’s finding that Moncreiff teaches dynamically adding or removing. Based on the forgoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 23. Claims 26 and 27 Appellants argue that independent claims 26 and 27 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 23. App. Br. 8—12. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As we are not apprised of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 27. Claim 28 13 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 Appellants argue that independent claim 28 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 23, in addition to the argument set forth below. See App. Br. 8-12. ISSUE 4 — Claim 28 recites a “controller to serve as a . . . headend.” App. Br. 19. The Examiner finds Hendricks discloses a controller {headend 208) that serves as a headend. Final Act. 6—7 citing Hendricks col. 3, lines 51—56. The Examiner finds the headend 208 performs “network monitoring and control” (via the network controller 214) and “receives and processes digitally compressed program signals” (via the signal processor 209 and dish 203). Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 8 citing Hendricks col. 15,1. 45—col. 16,1. 9. Appellants argue that Hendricks fails to teach enabling a controller to serve as a headend. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue “Hendricks merely teaches that the network controller plays a crucial role in monitoring and control of set top terminals within the headend, which is composed of multiple embodiments including the network controller, cable headend receiver, and the signal processor.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 12. Appellants cite to Hendricks Figure 4 (App. Br. 13); Appellants’ arguments also pertain to Hendricks Figure 3, which is reproduced below: 14 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 operations V CENTER 3 PROGRAM PACKAGING MENU management DELIVERY CONTROL 204 JLJlii-J PROGRAM DELIVERY MASTER CONTROL uplink site 222' ,-220 208 SIGNAL PROCESSOR I NETWORK 1 CONTROLLER ;-V PRESS ORDER SLIT TON HERE i TO ORDER ______ June V REMOTE/CUSTOM ER' iNTERRACE \Cft8LE HOUSEHOLD w-\ V"—900 i.\ V / ANALOG SIGNALS DIGITAL COMPREi SIGNALS {YCTV} OTHER DIGITAL OR ANALOG '20S '214 2iC"" X UP-STREAM/ \ interactivity Hendricks Figure 3 illustrates the primary components of a television delivery system, including headend 208 comprising network controller 214, signal processor 209, and (unlabeled) satellite receiver dish 203. Specifically, Appellants argue that network controller 214 is “within” headend 208 along with signal processor and satellite receiver dish, therefore, the network controller by itself cannot “serve as” a headend. Id. 15 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 We disagree with the Appellants’ characterization of the rejection. The Examiner finds headend 208—including network controller 214— rather than network controller 214 alone corresponds to the claimed “controller.” See Final Act. 6—7; see also Ans. 8. Said differently, the Examiner finds that the entire cable headend 208 (the combination of network controller 214, signal processor 209, and dish 203) corresponds to the claimed controller serving as a headend. See Ans. 8. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it mischaracterizes the rejection. By not addressing the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, Appellants have not demonstrated how the Examiner erred. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 28. Claim 29 ISSUE 5 — Independent claim 29 recites a unit comprising a “processor.” App. Br. 20. Appellants argue Hendricks lacks a processor in the unit, since network controller 214 is located outside the unit within headend 208. See App. Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 13. We do not agree with Appellants’ characterization of the rejection. While Appellants argue that Hendricks’ network controller is located outside of the unit, the Examiner does not designate the network controller as the claimed processor. Instead, the Examiner finds Hendricks’ microprocessor corresponds to the claimed processor. See Final Act. 8 citing col. 13,11. 8— 27; see also Hendricks col. 14,11. 2—11 (“microprocessor”). Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection. In failing to address the rejection 16 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 as articulated in the Final Action, Appellants have not demonstrated how the Examiner erred in finding Hendricks teaches the claimed “processor.” ISSUE 6 — Independent claim 29 recites a “network interface configured for [Ethernet connection capabilities.” App. Br. 20. The Examiner finds that the combination of Hendricks, Lehtinen, and Moncreiff teaches the claimed invention but for Ethernet; the Examiner relies on Enns for Ethernet. See Final Act. 9. Appellants argue: (1) Hendricks and Lehtinen teach away from a network interface with Ethernet, (2) the combination of Hendricks and Lehtinen lacks a network interface with Ethernet, and (3) the combination fails to perform the claimed function. App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 13. We are not persuaded. First, we do not agree with Appellants’ teaching away argument, because Appellants do not provide any arguments that Hendricks or Lehtinen “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” mobile digital television and gaming with a network interface for Ethernet. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Second, Appellants’ argument attacking only Hendricks and Lehtinen for lacking a “network interface configured for [Ethernet” is unpersuasive, because the Examiner relies on Enns for Ethernet. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 10. Appellants simply point out Hendricks and Lehtinen individually lack Ethernet but do not present arguments to the combination including Enns. App. Br. 15. Because Appellants argue the references individually rather than the combination, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in finding the combination suggests a network interface configured for Ethernet. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[0]ne cannot show non- 17 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Lastly, we are unpersuaded that the combination would fail to function as claimed. As noted above, Appellants incorrectly argue the references individually as opposed to the combination. As such, Appellants have not sufficiently explained why or how the combination would not function, nor have Appellants demonstrated that the combination is beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejection of claim 29. Claim 30 Appellants argue that independent claim 30 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 29. See App. Br. 14—16. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive; therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen to reject independent claims 23 and 26—28. The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen teaches “restricting selected mobile digital television and gaming receivers from viewing certain mobile digital television and gaming program and/or data,” as recited in independent claim 23. The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen teaches “wherein the mobile digital television 18 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 and gaming controller authorizes and causes certain mobile digital television and gaming receivers to be added or removed dynamically from one or more mobile digital television and gaming video conferencing active set or selected logical group,” as recited in independent claim 23. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen teaches “enabling a mobile digital television and gaming controller to serve as a mobile digital television and gaming system headend,” as recited in independent claim 28. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Hendricks, Moncreiff, Lehtinen, and Enns teaches “a mobile digital television and gaming processor,” as recited in independent claims 29, and similarly recited in independent claim 30. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Hendricks, Moncreiff, Lehtinen, and Enns teaches “a network interface configured for [Ethernet connection capabilities,” as recited in independent claim 29, and similarly recited in independent claim 30. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23 and 26—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hendricks, Yu, Moncreiff, and Lehtinen is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hendricks, Moncreiff, Lehtinen, and Enns is affirmed. 19 Appeal 2016-002307 Application 13/285,930 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 20 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation