Ex Parte Chou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201511164065 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YU-PIN CHOU and HSU-JUNG TUNG ____________________ Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 16–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The invention relates to improving transmission quality of a display system (Spec. ¶ 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display system for evaluating a transmission quality, comprising: a transmitter, comprising: Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 2 a pattern generator for generating a pattern; and a data mixer, coupled to the pattern generator, for mixing a first signal of an image signal and the pattern to produce a mixed signal; a wired channel, coupled to the transmitter, for transferring the mixed signal; and a receiver, coupled to the wired channel, for receiving the mixed signal from the transmitter, the receiver comprising: a demixer for separating the received mixed signal into a received signal and a received pattern; and a decision circuit, coupled to the demixer, for determining the transmission quality according to the received pattern and the pattern and thereby adjusting a setting value of the receiver according to the transmission quality and reporting the transmission quality to the transmitter; wherein the receiver receives said pattern from the transmitter via a separate wired channel distinct from the wired channel; wherein the transmitter receives the transmission quality and adjusts a transmission parameter of the transmitter according to the transmission quality. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Suvanen US 6,633,536 B1 Oct. 14, 2003 Nakagawa Kobayashi US 2004/0130467 A1 US 2004/0218625 A1 July 8, 2004 Nov. 4, 2004 Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Nakagawa. Claims 18, 19, and 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Suvanen. ANALYSIS Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend Kobayashi’s “training transmissions are not mixed with an image signal” (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend “Kobayashi does not disclose that a transmission parameter is adjusted at the transmitter according to a transmission quality determined by the receiver, as expressly required by claim 1” (id.). We disagree with Appellants. Appellants’ first argument regarding Kobayashi’s training transmissions is not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on the portion of Kobayashi that discusses sending a training pattern (see Kobayashi ¶ 87) for disclosing the claim 1 limitation “a data mixer, coupled to the pattern generator, for mixing a first signal of an image signal and the pattern to produce a mixed signal.” Rather, the Examiner relies on Kobayashi’s paragraph 101 for this feature (Ans. 5). Appellants’ Appeal Brief does not address this portion of Kobayashi, and thus does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kobayashi discloses the argued “mixing” limitation. Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 4 Appellants’ second argument regarding the claim 1 limitations “the receiver comprising . . . a decision circuit . . . for determining the transmission quality according to the received pattern . . . wherein the transmitter receives the transmission quality and adjusts a transmission parameter of the transmitter according to the transmission quality” is also not persuasive. Appellants’ Appeal Brief does not specifically address Kobayashi’s paragraphs 101 and 102, which the Examiner relies upon for this feature (Ans. 6). Kobayashi discloses: In step 2600, a video signal is received from a video source. Next, a signal quality test pattern is provided by the video source associated with the received video signal (step 2602). In step 2604, a determination of a bit error rate is made, based upon the quality test pattern. Then, a determination is made of whether the bit error rate is greater than a threshold value (step 2606). (Kobayashi ¶ 101). [I]f the bit error rate is determined to be greater than the threshold value in step 2606, a determination is made (step 2608) as to whether the bit rate is greater than a minimum bit rate. If the bit rate is greater than a minimum bit rate, then the bit rate is lowered (step 2610) and the process returns to step 2606. (Kobayashi ¶ 102). Accordingly, we find that Kobayashi discloses receiving a signal quality test pattern from a video source, i.e., the claimed “transmitter,” determining a bit error rate, i.e., the claimed “transmission quality,” and then adjusting the bit rate, i.e., the claimed “transmission parameter” (see id. ¶¶ 101–102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the bit error rate would be determined by the receiver of the signal quality test pattern sent from Kobayashi’s video source, and that the video source would adjust the bit rate according to this determination. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 5 Kobayashi fails to disclose “a transmission parameter is adjusted at the transmitter according to a transmission quality determined by the receiver” (App. Br. 7), particularly absent specific arguments from Appellants with respect to Kobayashi’s paragraphs 101 and 102. Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings that Kobayashi discloses the argued “transmission quality” limitations. Although Appellants’ Reply Brief does mention Kobayashi’s paragraph 101 (see Reply Br. 1), the argument presented—“the signal quality test pattern of Kobayashi is not generated by a ‘decision circuit, coupled to [a] demixer,’ (or corresponding circuitry) as required by claim 1” (id. at 2)—is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a decision circuit for generating a pattern. Rather, in claim 1 the transmitter comprises a “pattern generator for generating a pattern,” while the receiver comprises a “decision circuit . . . for determining the transmission quality according to the received pattern.” We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–14, 16–19, and 23–28 not specifically argued separately. Although Appellants argue claims 20–22 separately, the arguments presented are not persuasive. Regarding claim 20, Appellants’ argument— “Kobayashi describ[es] training transmissions which are not mixed with an image signal” (App. Br. 10)—is the same as that presented for claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as discussed above, and we thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. Regarding claims 21 and 22, Appellants merely repeat the Examiner’s findings and recite the claim language without specifically explaining why Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 6 or how the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is incorrect (see App. Br. 11). With respect to claim 21, the Examiner cites paragraphs 101 and 102 of Kobayashi (Ans. 9) which discloses changing the bit rate of data transmitted from the video source (Kobayashi ¶¶ 101–102). We agree with the Examiner that this meets the limitation of changing a characteristic of the image signal as recited in claim 21 (id. at 9). The Examiner also cites paragraph 83 of Kobayashi (id. at 5) which discloses that the main link between the video source and the display device can be a set of twisted pair wires (Kobayashi ¶ 83; Fig. 16). We agree with the Examiner that this meets the limitation of “the wired channel” recited in claim 21, with antecedent basis in claim 1 (id. at 5). With respect to claim 22, the Examiner also relies (Ans. 9) on Kobayashi’s changing the bit rate of data transmitted from the video source (Kobayashi ¶¶ 101–102). We agree with the Examiner and find this meets the limitation of changing the “frequency” of the image signal as recited in claim 22 (id.). Absent specific arguments from Appellants to the contrary, we thus also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 16–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 16–28 are affirmed. Appeal 2012-007018 Application 11/164,065 7 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 hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation