Jinman Kang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2020

15500657 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2020)

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.
15/500,657 01/31/2017 Jinman KANG 84593311 4515
22879 7590 01/10/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
NATNAEL, PAULOS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2020 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):
barbl@hp.com
ipa.mail@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JINMAN KANG, BEN WYNNE, and AMIT A. MARATHE
____________________

Appeal 2019-000634
Application 15/500,657
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, and 16 through 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company
L.P. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000634
Application 15/500,657

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use in a computing system
which includes a projector unit having memory which stores calibration data
for components of the computer system. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A computing system comprising:
a processor; and
a projector coupled to the processor, the projector
comprising:
a projector memory; and
a projector application programming interface
(API) to store calibration data pertaining to a plurality of
components of the computing system in the projector
memory, the plurality of components comprising the
projector and a display of the computing system, wherein
the calibration data comprises information pertaining to
calibrations performed during factory calibration of each
of the plurality of components,
the processor to detect a failure in the computing
system, and in response to detecting the failure, retrieve
the calibration data from the projector memory using the
projector API, and restore settings of the plurality of
components using the retrieved calibration data.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10, 13, 14,
and 16 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pinhanez (US 2002/0105623 A1, pub. Aug. 8, 2002) and Attarde (US

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed November 14, 2018 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed November 30, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed October 24, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-000634
Application 15/500,657

3
2015/0261792 A1, pub. Sept. 17, 2015). Answer 4–14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pinhanez, Attarde, and Kang (US 9,519,968 B2, iss.
Dec. 13, 2016). Answer 14–15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kang, Pinhanez, and Attarde. Answer 15–17.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, based on Pinhanez and
Attarde, on pages 3 through 10 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues that
the rejection of independent claims 8 and 13 is in error for the same reasons
as claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–12. The dispositive issue presented by these
arguments, is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Pinhanez and Attarde, teaches storing calibration data pertaining to a
plurality of components in the projector memory where the plurality of
components comprises a projector and a display of the computing system as
recited in independent claim 1 and similarly required by independent claims
8 and 13. Appeal Br. 9–10.
The Examiner’s rejection cites to Pinhanez as teaching the memory
storing calibration data pertaining to plural components of the computer
system including a display (item 226 in Figure 2, 920 and 930 in Figure 9)
Appeal 2019-000634
Application 15/500,657

4
and the video projector (item 211 in Figure 2). Answer 5 (citing Pinhanez
paragraphs 30, 43, 50, 63, and 83). The Examiner, in response to
Appellant’s argument, cites to Pinhanez’s Figures 2 and 10, and paragraphs
30, 43, 50, 63, and 83 as teaching correction surface parameters for the video
projector and calibration flow charts. Answer 24.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Pinhanez and disagree with
the Examiner that the reference teaches the disputed limitation. While we
agree that Pinhanez teaches calibration parameters associated with the
projector, we do not find that Pinhanez also teaches calibration parameters
of a display. Item 226 in Figure 2 and items 920, 930 in Figure 10, cited by
the Examiner as a display, are merely the area of a surface on which the
projector projects an image and as such is neither a component of the
computer system or a display for which there are calibration parameters. See
Pinhanez ¶¶ 28, 40, 48, 90, 91. As such we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 13 and dependent claims 2 through
6, 9, 10, 14, and 16 through 23 based upon the combination of Pinhanez and
Attarde.
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7 and 11 based upon
the combination of Pinhanez, Attarde, and Kang relies upon the same
teachings of Pinhanez to teach the limitation of independent claims 1 and 8.
Answer 14. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims for the same reason as discussed above with respect to
independent claims 1 and 8.
The Examiner also rejects claims 1, 7, and 13 applying a different
rationale using the teaching of Kang, Pinhanez, and Attarde on pages 15
through 17 of the Answer. In this rejection the Examiner finds that Kang
Appeal 2019-000634
Application 15/500,657

5
teaches a projector unit having a memory to store calibration data pertaining
to components of a computer system comprising a projector and display.
Answer 15 (citing Fig. 1).
Appellant argues that this rejection is also in error as neither Pinhanez
nor Kang teaches calibration data pertaining to components comprising the
projector and a display. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant relies upon
the arguments discussed with respect to Pinhanez discussed above, and
asserts that although Kang refers to calibrating visual sensors, it does not
discuss data relating to calibrating a display. Appeal Br. 13–14.
We concur with Appellant’s arguments. Kang’s Figure 1, the only
evidence cited by the Examiner to support the rejection, depicts a calibration
system and a cluster, which includes two cameras and a projector, the figure
does not also depict a display. Figure 1 of Kang also includes item 110, the
surface on which the projector projects an image, however, this item is not a
display as it is neither a component of the computer system or a display for
which there are calibration parameters. Thus, we do not find that the
Examiner has demonstrated that the combination of Kang, Pinhanez, and
Attarde teaches the disputed limitation of independent claim 1. As such we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13 based upon the
combination of Kang, Pinhanez, and Attarde.

CONCLUSION
Appeal 2019-000634
Application 15/500,657

6
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14,
and 16 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–
10, 13,
14, 16–23
103 Pinhanez, Attarde 1–6, 8–10, 13,
14, 16–23
7, 11 103 Pinhanez, Attarde,
Kang
7, 11
1, 7, 13 103 Kang, Pinhanez,
Attarde
1, 7, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13, 14,
16–23

REVERSED