Ex Parte McCarten et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201411175044 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID MCCARTEN, PETER ECK, SCOTT ELLIOTT, and HIROSHI KAMADA ____________________ Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE David McCarten et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 24, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads (emphasis added): 1. Apparatus for use in a car, comprising: a car area network disposed in a car to enable communications between various devices in the car; an existing consumer electronics device corresponding to a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system, the existing consumer electronics device being coupled to the car area network and having an existing consumer electronics device function, wherein the consumer electronics device is reprogrammed so that the existing consumer electronics device is transformed into a virtual video game player using a video game emulator or transcompiler program to support an additional control function that includes controlling execution of video games, the consumer electronics device including: processing circuitry already existing in the consumer electronics device for the purpose of supporting the existing consumer electronics device function, a car area network interface for interfacing the processing circuitry with the car area network; a user interface coupled to the processing circuitry; Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 3 a memory, coupled to the processing circuitry, for storing video game emulator or transcompiler program code executable by the processing circuitry for use by the processing circuitry in supporting play of one or more video games; a game server coupled to the car area network for assisting the reprogrammed consumer electronics device in supporting play of one or more video games; a video game display device coupled to the car area network for displaying video game information to a car occupant in accordance with a game being executed under the control of one or both of the reprogrammed consumer electronics device and the game server; a multifunction controller for transmitting control information to the reprogrammed consumer electronics device via the car area network to permit a car occupant to control the reprogrammed consumer electronics device to permit the occupant to play a video game displayed on the video game display; and one or more audio or visual devices coupled to the car area network and configured to be controlled by commands transmitted from the reprogrammed consumer electronics device or from the multifunction controller over the car area network. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-3, 5-21, and 24-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Eck (US 2002/0045484 A1; published Apr. 18, 2002). II. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eck and Razavi (US 6,507,810 B2; issued Jan. 14, 2003). Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 4 ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner found Eck discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, including “an existing consumer electronics device corresponding to a DVD player, CD player, or car radio system.” Ans. 5. The Examiner found “televisions, PCs, video game platforms, or any other general purpose display device corresponds to the above [existing consumer electronics device].” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Eck, paras. [0108]-[0117]). The Examiner also stated “PCs, televisions, video game platforms, and other general purpose display devices are all well known to have DVD, CD, or radio capabilities[,]” and that “[t]he majority of PCs and video game platforms, for example, all contain at the very least, an optical disc-based media (e.g.[,] Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, or CD)[]” and “these devices are considered DVD players, CD players, or radios.” Id. at 13 (emphases added). The Examiner also stated that Ecks’s computers “correspond to” a CD player or a DVD player, in that Eck discloses the system includes a removable optical disk, such as a CD ROM or other optical media (e.g., DVD). Id. at 13-14 (citing Eck, para. [0224]). Appellants contest the Examiner’s finding that Eck discloses “an existing consumer electronics device corresponding to a DVD player, CD player, or car radio system,” as claimed. App. Br. 14. Rather, Appellants contend that Eck is primarily directed to the use of “general purpose” or “generic” computing devices, and loading and executing emulator software onto such devices. Id. at 14-15. Appellants contend that none of “televisions, PCs, video game platforms, or any other general purpose display device” found by the Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 5 Examiner “is” “a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system,” as specifically claimed. App. Br. 14. In support, Appellants provide a dictionary definition of “correspond” as to “‘[h]ave a close similarity; match or agree almost exactly.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellants also contend that “the specification discloses that a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system actually is the existing consumer electronics device.” Id. (emphasis added). In support, Appellants reference the following description: The existing consumer electronics device 18 may be, for example, a car radio, a sound system, a CD player, a DVD player, a GPS navigator, a television, a satellite radio, a mobile radio, etc., that is adapted to interface with a car area network (described later) and to perform a variety of control entertainment functions including video gaming function that would otherwise not be performed by the existing CED. Id. (citing Spec. para. [0023]; emphasis added). We understand Appellants’ position is that “corresponding to” means “is,” and hence, claim 1 requires “an existing consumer electronics device [that is] a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system.” “The Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Appellants do not direct us to a specific definition of “corresponding to” in the Specification. However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's apparent construction of the limitation “corresponding to Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 6 a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system,” as merely requiring the existing consumer electronics device have “DVD, CD, or radio capabilities,” is not consistent with the Appellants’ definition of “correspond,” as well as with the description in the Specification pertaining to an “existing consumer electronics device” noted supra. The Examiner did not make a finding that Eck discloses any existing consumer electronics device that is a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system, and is also reprogrammed to have an additional video game control function, as claimed. We understand the Examiner found Eck’s disclosed “video game playing platform” (see Eck, para. [0114]) is as “an existing consumer electronics device,” as claimed. However, Appellants’ Specification describes CD players, DVD players, and car radio systems, as claimed, as being “non-gaming platforms” and, as such, contrasts such platforms with existing game platforms as desirable to keep cost to a minimum by using existing non-gaming platforms that already exist in cars. See Spec. para. [0010]. Moreover, claim 1 calls for an existing consumer electronics device reprogrammed to have video games control functionality, in addition to an existing consumer electronics device function. The Specification distinguishes between televisions and the claimed CD players, DVD players, and car radio systems. Id. Accordingly, the Examiner’s determination that Eck’s disclosure of “televisions” (see Eck, paras. [0115]- [0116]) that can be added to a plane or train to provide a video gaming network meets the claim limitation reciting “an existing consumer electronics device corresponding to a DVD player, CD player, or car radio system” is not consistent with the Specification, which further disavows Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 7 coverage of such add-on systems in favor of using existing consumer electronics devices that come standard on a car. We also agree with Appellants that Eck’s disclosure of “a personal computer” (see Eck, para. [0113]) and “any other special or general purpose display device” (see Eck, paras. [0117]) does not meet the claim limitation. In this regard, Appellants contend “general purpose computing devices are designed to load and execute different types of programs[]” (App. Br. 16), “[b]ut that is not the case for a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system installed in a car network. These thin devices are designed only to do what their highly-specialized, respective embedded program or logic is pre-configured to do” (id. at 17). We understand that the claimed “existing consumer electronics device” is a specialized-purpose device that is only designed to play a DVD (DVD player), a CD (CD player), or radio (car radio system) and already exists in a car, not a general-purpose device that has multiple functionalities, or can be added or retrofitted to a car. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not make a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Eck discloses “an existing consumer electronics device,” as claimed. The Examiner also found Eck’s device “is “reprogrammed,” as claimed. Ans. 5 (citing Eck, paras. [0118]-[0119]). According to the Examiner, because Eck’s regular devices may also support video game emulation and multipurpose configurations, they are reprogrammed for this support. Id. (citing Eck, paras. [0135]-[0136]). However, because the Examiner’s finding that Eck discloses “an existing consumer electronics device,” as claimed, is not supported by Eck, it follows that Eck also does not disclose the claim limitation reciting “the consumer electronics device is Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 8 reprogrammed so that the existing consumer electronics device is transformed into a virtual video game player using a video game emulator or trans compiler program to support an additional control function that includes controlling execution of video games.” In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2, 3, 5-21, and 31, as being anticipated by Eck. Claim 24 recites limitations similar to those discussed supra for claim 1. The Examiner’s findings for claim 24 are the same as those made for claim 1. Ans. 12. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 24, or its dependent claim 32, as being anticipated by Eck for reasons similar to those discussed supra for claim 1. Claim 25 is directed to “a method for using a car area network disposed in a car to enable communications between various existing consumer electronic devices in the car” comprising, inter alia, adapting one or more of the existing consumer electronic devices using a video game emulator or transcompiler program so that the adapted consumer electronic device functions as a virtual video game platform to support play of video games, where the adapted consumer electronic device corresponds to one or more of a DVD player, a CD player, or a car radio system. Emphasis added. The Examiner’s findings for claim 25 are the same as those made for claim 1. Ans. 12. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25, or its dependent claims 26-30, as being anticipated by Eck for reasons similar to those discussed supra for claim 1. Appeal 2011-013615 Application 11/175,044 9 Rejection II Claims 22 and 23 depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s application of Razavi for this rejection (Ans. 12-13) does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 22 and 23. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-32. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation