Ex Parte Vermola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2014

10580677 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LARRI VERMOLA and TUOMO SAARIKIVI
____________________

Appeal 2012–004687
Application 10/580,677
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
18–21, 24, 25, 27–36, 38, 39, and 42–49. Claims 1–17, 22, 23, 26, 37, 40,
and 41 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-004687
Application 10/580,677
2

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to data reception in a multi-function receiving
device. Abst. Claim 18, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
18. A method of receiving data comprising:
receiving data from a broadcast network;
processing the received data;
outputting the processed data;
in response to an interruption, proceeding in a first resource
saving mode by continuing to receive data from the
broadcast network but not processing and not outputting
said received data; and
proceeding in a second resource saving mode in which no data
is received from the broadcast network, after operating in
the first resource saving mode for a first predetermined
time period,
wherein, after operating in said second resource saving mode
for a second predetermined time period, an application
for outputting the processed data is deactivated, and
wherein the step of receiving data from the broadcast network
comprises filtering the received data in order to discard
unwanted data.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dahlin
Wakamatsu
US 6,122,263
US 2001/0029196 A1
Sept. 19, 2000
Oct. 11, 2001
Na
Guterman
Engstrom
US 7,031,746 B2
US 7,062,303 B2
US 7,065,333 B2
Apr. 18, 2006
June 13, 2006
June 20, 2006
Appeal 2012-004687
Application 10/580,677
3

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29–33, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 44–49 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Engstrom,
Dahlin, and Guterman. FOA 2–14.
Claims 19, 21, 34, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Engstrom, Dahlin, Guterman, and Na. FOA 14–15.
Claims 28 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Engstrom Dahlin, Guterman, and Wakamatsu. FOA 15–
16.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6–11)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5–7), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the Examiner erred in finding Engstrom teaches the disputed limitation of
filtering the received data in order to discard unwanted data as required by
claim 18.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’

1 Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 18 and 33
collectively. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 19–21, 24, 25,
27–32, 34–36, 38, 39, and 42–49. Therefore, based on Appellants’
arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 18–21, 24, 25, 27–36, 38, 39 and
42–49 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-004687
Application 10/580,677
4
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (FOA 2–16; Ans.
5–8) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 9–11) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellants contend Engstrom’s tuners select desired frequencies by
which to receive data but do not receive data across all frequencies and then
filter out the desired frequency from the received data. App. Br. 9. That is,
according to Appellants, “the tuners described in Engstrom do not filter
received data, but rather provide a manner in which to select what data is
received.” Id. According to Appellants,
The receipt of the data in Engstrom occurs through the operation of
the tuners, which are tuned to a particular frequency in order to
receive such data via the aid of the antenna. Thus, the Appellants
submit that there is no instance in which both wanted and unwanted
data is simultaneously received by the antenna/tuner of Engstrom, and
then unwanted data is filtered out and discarded. No such discarding
of received and unwanted data occurs in Engstrom.
App. Br. 10. Appellants conclude Engstrom fails to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of filtering the received data in order to discard unwanted
data as required by claim 18. Id.
The Examiner responds by finding Engstrom’s antenna 450 receives
signals of multiple frequencies all of which signals are provided to tuners
452 and 453. Ans. 10. Because both tuners receive multiple signals (e.g.,
first and second programs), with one tuner receiving a first program signal
and the other tuner a second program signal, each tuner filters-out the
respective unwanted second and first program signal. Ans. 11. The
Appeal 2012-004687
Application 10/580,677
5
Examiner concludes Engstrom teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Ans. 8.
We agree with the Examiner. By selecting a desired program,
Engstrom’s tuners reject or filter unwanted signals and associated data from
amongst all signals received by the antenna (wanted and unwanted) and
thereby discard unwanted data associated with the rejected signals. That is,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, the disputed limitation of
filtering the received data in order to discard unwanted data includes and is
taught by Engstrom’s tuners which receive signals to which each is tuned
along with the associated data by filtering the signals and rejecting unwanted
signals and their associated data. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants that Engstrom’s antenna 450 does not receive data. App. Br. 8.
By definition, an antenna is “[a] device used for radiating or receiving radio
waves.”2 Likewise, Appellants’ Specification discloses “first antenna 9 and
receiver 11 are configured to receive signals from the digital broadcast
network 3.” Spec. p. 6, ll. 25–30. That is, the antenna and receiver both
receive radio wave signals which include data. As discussed supra, because
Engstrom’s tuners receive selected signals, each tuner rejects non-selected
signals (i.e., filters the signals to process selected signals and reject non-
selected signals) and therefore, by filtering out the unwanted signals, also
filters the signals received by the antenna and the associated data in order to
discard unwanted signals and their data.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 18 and, for the

2 McGraw-Hill dictionary of electrical and computer engineering, 21
(McGraw-Hill, 2004).

Appeal 2012-004687
Application 10/580,677
6
same reasons, independent claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Engstrom, Dahlin, and Guterman together with the rejections of dependent
claims 20, 24, 25, 27, 29–32, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 44–49 not separately
argued. We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 19, 21, 34 and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Engstrom, Dahlin, Guterman, and Na and
dependent claims 28 and 43 over Engstrom Dahlin, Guterman, and
Wakamatsu, these dependent claims also not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
We find the Examiner did not err in finding Engstrom teaches the
disputed limitation of filtering the received data in order to discard unwanted
data as required by claim 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18–21, 24, 25, 27–36, 38, 39
and 42–49 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

tj