Ex Parte Hayes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2016

12724820 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121724,820 03/16/2010 Patrick H. Hayes
34018 7590 02/01/2016
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81230. l 45US 1 8052
EXAMINER
NAWAZ, TALHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2016 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):
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK H. HAYES and JEREMY K. BLACK
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-13 and 15-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Universal Electronics
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to 3D television viewing
systems, and particularly, relates to a pair of universal active-shutter 3D
viewing glasses. Spec. 2: 11-16. According to the Specification, many
television manufacturers have developed proprietary signaling schemes,
shutter timings, frame rates, and/ or data formats for the synchronization
signal transmitted to the active-shutter 3D glasses to implement alternate-
frame sequencing based 3D approach. Spec. 1 :23-2:5. However, active-
shutter glasses from one manufacturer may not be compatible with
televisions from another manufacturer. Spec. 2:5-8.
Appellants' invention seeks to provide a means for universally
synchronizing the 3 D viewing glasses with alternate-frame sequencing based
3D encoded material presented on each of the plural different televisions.
Spec. 2:10-15.
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative, is reproduced below.
1. A method for controlling a shutter of a universal viewing
device used to view alternate-frame sequencing based 3D
material presented on a rendering device, comprising:
selecting from a library of signal format definition data a
signal format definition data for use by the universal viewing
device in decoding received signals wherein the received signals
comprise encoded synchronization data appropriate for the
rendering device;
using the signal format definition data selected from the
library of signal format definition data by the universal viewing
device to decode the encoded synchronization data in the
received signals; and
controlling the shutter of the universal viewing device as
a function of the encoded synchronization data in the received
signals as decoded by use of the signal format definition data
selected from the library of signal format definition data to
2
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
thereby allow the universal viewing device to be used to view
alternate-frame sequencing based 3 D material presented on the
rendering device.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-9, 13, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zalewski (US 2010/0007582 Al; Jan. 14,
2010) and Choo (US 2007/0261023 Al; Nov. 8, 2007).
2. Claims 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zalewski, Choo, and DeCusatis (US 2007/0139769 Al;
June 21, 2007).
3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zalewski, Choo, and Jacobs (US 2008/0043203 Al: Feb.
21, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We emphasize the following.
3
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
I. Claim l
A. Using the Signal Format Definition Data Selected From the
Library of Signal Format Definition Data by the Universal
Viewing Device to Decode the Encoded Synchronization Data
in the Received Signals
Appellants argue:
[NJowhere does Zalewski describe that the 'synchronization
data' that is transmitted by the control unit and received by a pair
of LCD shutter glasses is encoded. Because Zalewski never
describes that the 'synchronization data' that is received by the
pair of LCD shutter glasses is encoded, Zalewski also fails to
describe the pair of LCD shutter glasses using a signal format
definition to decode the encoded 'svnchronization data ' that is
transmitted by the control unit and received by the pair of LCD
shutter glasses.
App. Br. 6 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Zalewski teaches
transmitting synchronization data using Bluetooth technology and such a
transmission involves data encoded and decoded between the two devices.
• ,., A Ans . .J----4.
Appellants argue that even if Zalewski teaches transmitting
synchronization data using Bluetooth, "this does not evidence that Zalewski
discloses using a signal format definition data selected from a library of
signal format definition data to decode encoded synchronization signal data
as claimed." Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Zalewski teaches transmitting synchronization data from the
television to a pair of active shutter glasses using Bluetooth and that
therefore this data is encoded. See Ans. 3-5. Appellants do not dispute that
data transmitted using Bluetooth is encoded, but instead argue that such data
is not decoded using a signal format definition data selected from a library.
4
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
Reply Br. 2. However, Appellants' arguments attack the references
individually and fail to address the Examiner's rejection based on the
combination of Zalewski and Choo. In particular, the Examiner relies upon
Choo as teaching the use of a format definition data selected from a library
of signals. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 2. We therefore do not find
Appellants' arguments to be persuasive of Examiner error.
B. Whether Choo is Analogous Art
Addressing Choo, Appellants argue:
Choo describes a system that functions to generate DSP (digital
signal processor) code by receiving and combining desired
software modules (e.g., a codec library) from a codec server to
thereby implement a media decoder that can be used with
various different media formats that are continually being
developed for broadcasting, telecommunications, and the
Internet.
App. Br. 7 (citing Choo i-fi-13, 6, and 24). Therefore, Appellants argue Choo
"would not have commend itself to an inventor's attention when considering
problems associated with how to improve the pair of glasses that are used to
view media on the monitor of the Zalewski system." App. Br. 7. The
Examiner finds that "Choo is analogous to Zalewski .... [B]oth arts are
directed towards multimedia presentation devices and using formatting
codes." Ans. 2-3.
"Whether a reference in the prior art is 'analogous' is a fact question."
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria
have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the
art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed
5
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
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. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Choo and Zalewski are
in the same field of endeavor as Appellants' invention because both
Zalewski and Choo are "directed towards multimedia presentation devices
and using formatting codes." Ans. 3. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Choo and Zalewski are analogous art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claim
16 which were argued together. App. Br. 5-8. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2-13, 15, and 17-20 which depend from one
of claims 1 or 16.
II. Claim 21
AppeUants argue "[Zaiewski] does not disclose, teach, or suggest an
intermediate device using a signal format definition selected from a library
of signal format definition data to decode encoded synchronization data in a
received signal or an intermediate device causing the shutter of a universal
viewing device to be controlled as claimed." App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds "Zalewski discloses a slew of intermediary
devices that can be used in the 3D system," such as "cable television, game
console, DVD player 1, VCR, and PC" that "communicate with the system
and represents multiple video feeds." Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds,
"[t]hese intermediary devices work off different formatting signals and the
signals and proper data is transferred to the corresponding glasses . . . . The
devices all sync to the respective glasses being used and are provided the
6
Appeal2014-002872
Application 12/724,820
proper data for that feed." Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes "[t]herefore
Zalewski discloses the use of an intermediary device causing the shutter of a
universal viewing device to be controlled." Ans. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 21 requires the
intermediary device to decode encoded synchronization data. Although the
intermediary devices the Examiner identifies may sync to the glasses and
may control the shuttering of the glasses, the Examiner has not explained
how this process includes the intermediary devices decoding encoded
synchronization data.
Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 21 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
gvw
7