Ex Parte Newton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

10564296 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017)

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.
10/564,296 01/10/2006 Philip Steven Newton 2003P01991WOUS 7969
24737 7590 06/27/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue TEKLE, DANIEL T
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP STEVEN NEWTON, DECLAN PATRICK KELLY,
JINGWEI TAN, LIANG GAN, and JUN SHI
Appeal 2015-004067
Application 10/5 64,2961
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JASON J. CHUNG, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—9, 11—13, and 15.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to recording a signal comprising a recording
discontinuity. Spec. 1:6—7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 10, 14, and 16 have been canceled.
Appeal 2015-004067
Application 10/564,296
1. An apparatus for recording comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a source signal including
a continuous plurality of sections having a first timeline running
for the duration of the plurality of sections having a first timeline
running for the duration of the plurality of sections in the source
signal;
a recording controller coupled to the receiver configured
to generate a recording signal from the source signal, the
recording signal including one or more of the plurality of sections
having a recording discontinuity with respect to the plurality of
sections of the source signal;
a time processor coupled to the recording controller and a
user interface configured to generate a second timeline to
compensate for a time discontinuity corresponding to the
recording discontinuity; and
a storage medium coupled to the recording controller and
the time processor configured to store the recording signal
together with the second timeline.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1—9, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Frimout (US 2003/0014690 Al;
published Jan. 16, 2003) (hereafter “Frimout”) and Gable (US 6,151,443;
issued Nov. 21, 2000) (hereafter “Gable”). Ans. 5—9.3
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Frimout, Gable, and Swenson (US
6,064,380; issued May 16, 2000) (hereafter “Swenson”). Ans. 9-10.
3 All references are to the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 17, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-004067
Application 10/564,296
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Gable’s recording a first video program, changing
channels to a second video program, and resetting a clock corresponding to
the channel change teaches the limitation “generate a second timeline to
compensate for a time discontinuity corresponding to the recording
discontinuity” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 13 and
15). Ans. 6, 10-11.
Appellants argue Gable fails to teach “generate a second timeline to
compensate for a time discontinuity corresponding to the recording
discontinuity” because Gable does not teach a “single signal,” “missing
segments,” and “gaps in a timeline caused by missing segments of the
decoded stream.” App. Br. 8—11. Appellants further argue that Gable
merely teaches resetting a system clock to correspond to timing from paused
or changed programs. Id. at 11—12. We disagree with Appellants.
At the outset, we note that “single signal,” “missing segments,” and
“gaps in a timeline caused by missing segments of the decoded stream” are
features not recited in independent claims 1,13, and 15. “[A]ppellant[s’]
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Moreover, the cited portions of Gable relied upon by the Examiner
teach recording a first video program and changing channels to a second
video program; recording the second video program and resetting a clock
(e.g., generate a second timeline) corresponding to the channel change (e.g.,
time discontinuity corresponding to the recording discontinuity) to the
second video program (see Gable, 7:17—37), which meets the limitation
“generate a second timeline to compensate for a time discontinuity
3
Appeal 2015-004067
Application 10/564,296
corresponding to the recording discontinuity” as recited in claim 1 (and
similarly recited in claims 13 and 15).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because
Appellants have provided similar arguments against the rejections of claims
2—9, 11—13, and 15 (see App. Br. 12—13), these claims fall with claim 1 for
the same reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 11—13, and 15 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4