Ex Parte Hayes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 28, 201612724820 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation