Ex Parte BESS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12639877 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/639,877 12/16/2009
22879 7590 09/01/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles BESS
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.
82259957 7644
EXAMINER
ILUYOMADE, IFEDA YOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@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 CHARLES BESS
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
Technology Center 2600
Before JON M. WRGOVAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, and 22, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.§ 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[t]echniques for incorporating an
electrically mutable display in product packaging and forming an aggregate
display therefrom." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of display systems, each comprising a display
device;
wherein the display systems are configured to form an
aggregate display including the display device of each display
system; and
wherein each display system is configured to:
determine the relative location of the display system among
the plurality of display systems, and based on the determined
location:
select a portion of a complete image stored in the display
system for display, wherein each of the display systems is to
present a portion of the complete image on the aggregate display,
and
present, via the display device, the selected portion of the
image as part of the aggregate display.
1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chiu et al. US 2005/0030255 Al
Holmes et al. US 2008/0010871 Al
Strickland et al. US 2008/0278408 Al
Vertegaal et al. US 2010/0045705 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Feb. 10,2005
Jan. 17,2008
Nov. 13, 2008
Feb.25,2010
1. Claims 1--4, 7-9, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiu and Strickland. (See Final Act. 4--17.)
2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chiu, Strickland, and Holmes. (See Final Act. 17-19.)
3. Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable Holmes and Vertegaal. (See Final Act. 19-25.)
4. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable Holmes, Vertegaal, and Strickland. (See Final Act. 25-27.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS2
1. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent
claims is in error because "Chiu fails to teach or suggest that each display
stores a complete image for an aggregate display, a portion of which is
displayed by each display as part of an aggregate display." (App. Br. 11.)
2 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the two issues discussed
herein that are dispositive as to the rejection of all claims, we do not reach
additional contentions raised by Appellant.
3
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
2. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 15 and its
dependent claims is in error because "Vertegaal fails to provide any teaching
of the scope of any image stored in a container, much less that a container
stores [an] image to be displayed as an aggregate display via display devices
of multiple instances of the article as recited by claim 15." (App. Br. 15.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1--4, 6--9, 11-14
Claim 1 recites "a plurality of display systems ... configured to form
an aggregate display" where "each display system is configured to ...
determine the relative location of the display system among the plurality of
display systems" and "based on the determined location ... select a portion
of a complete image stored in the display system for display."
In the Final Action, the Examiner found that:
Chiu describes in fig. 2 and paragraph 24, 17, "each display is
configured with contact information with neighboring displays
and the relative location of the display. In one embodiment, each
display may be associated with a stack of content. In another
embodiment, each display is associated with a database or other
source of data from which content identification information can
be retrieved. (17) Content may be fed to a particular display
through a stack or other source that is associated with the
display."
(Final Act. 2.) Appellant argues that Chiu does not teach "select[ing] a
portion of a complete image stored in the display system for display," as
claimed. (See App. Br. 10-11.) In response, the Examiner reiterates the
above findings and also cites Chiu's paragraph 27, which states that the
"content identification information" used by a display "is the location of the
content over the network" and "[i]n the case where the network is a
4
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
collection of web servers, the content information may be the URLs of the
content." (Ans. 3.) The Examiner also cites paragraph 45 of Strickland,
which states that "virtually correlating two or more physically distinct
electronic displays to create the perception of a single electronic display is
well known." (Id.)
We agree with Appellant that the combination does not teach or
suggest a system in which "each display system is configured to ... select a
portion of a complete image stored in the display system for display." The
cited portions of Chiu describe how the content is located on a network, and
Strickland describes a set of displays driven by a single controller coupled to
a storage medium for storing the content (see Strickland i-fi-1 45--47). The
Examiner fails to explain how these references, either alone or in
combination, would teach or suggest a system in which each display stores
the complete image that is displayed across the aggregated displays.
For this reason, we decline to sustain (1) the Section 103 rejection of
claim 1, (2) the Section 103 rejection of independent claim 9, which includes
corresponding limitations, and (3) the rejections of dependent claims 2--4, 6-
8, and 11-14, which include all of the limitations of their independent
claims.
Claims 15-16, 18, 19, 21, and 22
Claim 15 recites "a storage device containing aggregate display
information comprising an image to be displayed as an aggregate display via
display devices of multiple instances of the article."
In the Final Action, the Examiner, found that V ertegaal
[ d]escribes collocating multiple devices horizontally, or collating
multiple devices vertically (stacking), allow[ing] image contents
to be automatically spread or enlarged across multiple device
5
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
screens[ and that a]ny interaction techniques now operate across
the entire surface of collocated or collated display screens, and
graphic elements may be moved across the boundaries of screens
through of the use of the appropriate interaction technique
wherein rotating the device around an axis may reveal
information that is stored contiguously to the information
displayed on the edge of said display).
(Ans. 22, citing Vertegaal Fig. 18, i-fi-f 105-106.) Appellant argues that
"Vertegaal Fig. 18 shows six containers forming a larger segmented display,
37 but fails to teach or suggest that a container includes a storage device
containing aggregate display information comprising an image to be
displayed as an aggregate display via display devices of multiple instances
of the article as required by claim 15" and that "Vertegaal fails to provide
any teaching of the scope of any image stored in a container, much less that
a container stores [an] image to be displayed as an aggregate display via
display devices of multiple instances of the article." (App. Br. 15.) In the
Answer, the Examiner points to paragraph 101 of Vertegaal, quoting it to the
effect that"[ o ]ne skilled in the art would understand that the transceiver
module is configured to transmit and receive image(s) 110, 112 and media
content stored in the memory module 310 ... in the form of analog or digital
signals to/from other electronic communications devices." (Ans. 9.)
We agree with Appellant. Vertegaal's paragraph 105, describing the
embodiment of Figure 18, states that "image contents [may] be
automatically spread or enlarged across multiple device screens" and that
"[a]ny interaction techniques now operate across the entire surface of
collocated or collated display screens," but does not describe such
techniques being implemented by including in storage of a device
"aggregate display information comprising an image to be displayed as an
6
Appeal2015-006778
Application 12/639,877
aggregate display via display devices of multiple instances of the article."
Paragraph 101, describing use of the transceiver module to transmit and
receive images and media content, does not address this issue either.
For these reasons, we decline to sustain the Section 103 rejection of
claim 15 and its dependent claims, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are
reversed.
REVERSED
7