Ex Parte Chou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12275912 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/275,912 11/21/2008
109673 7590 09/02/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu-Pin Chou
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.
251812-6160 2979
EXAMINER
VO, TEDT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-PIN CHOU, TZOU-BO LIN, CHIH-MING LEE, and
MING-SYUN WU
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8 and 22-36. Appellants have previously canceled claims 9-21.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to a method
and system for updating firmware of a display device. Spec. 1.
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for updating firmware through a DISPLAY
interface defined by three channels: a main link channel, an
auxiliary channel, and a hot plug detect signal line, wherein the
main link consists of alternating-current coupled (AC-coupled)
differential pairs and each main link lane is used for
unidirectional transmission of clock signals and audio-visual
data, wherein the auxiliary channel consists of an AC-coupled
differential pair used for bidirectional transmission of status
information and control commands, and wherein the hot plug
detect signal line is used to service an interrupt request from a
sink device, said method comprising:
storing and providing, by a storage circuit in a source
device with a DISPLAY interface, an updated firmware;
outputting, by a source device auxiliary channel, the
updated firmware with an auxiliary channel signal format;
receiving, by a sink device auxiliary channel in the sink
device with a DISPLAY interface, the updated firmware with the
auxiliary channel signal format and generating an output signal;
receiving the output signal by a multiplexer coupled to the
sink device auxiliary channel, the multiplexer being coupled to
an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) auxiliary channel device
servicer and a native auxiliary channel device servicer;
receiving, by the Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) auxiliary
channel device servicer via the multiplexer, the output signal and
generating an I2C protocol updated firmware;
updating, by a memory unit, firmware according to the I2C
protocol updated firmware; and
updating firmware of the memory unit through the source
device auxiliary channel and the sink device auxiliary channel.
2
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Lai et al. US 2007/0002347 Al Jan. 4, 2007
VESA Display PortTM Standard, Version 1.1, © 2007 Video Electronics
Standards Association
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8, and 22-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lai and VESA.
I. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Lai and VESA teaches or would have suggested
"receiving the output signal by a multiplexer coupled to the sink device
auxiliary channel, the multiplexer being coupled to an Inter-Integrated
Circuit (I2C) auxiliary channel device servicer and a native auxiliary channel
device servicer." (claim 1, emphasis added).
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Lai
1. Lai discloses that data transfer among the print port, conversion
module and the video signal connector conform with the I2C bus protocol as
3
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
specified by VESA. However, a dedicated device and dedicated bus are
required to transfer and upgrade firmware of the flat display panel. (i-f 6).
2. Lai addresses a need for a system and method for permitting the
rapid transfer and upgrade of the firmware of a display. (i-f 7).
VESA
3. VESA discloses the Display Port standard, wherein a
Display Port Link consists of a main link, an auxiliary channel (AUX CH),
and a hot-plug detect (HPD) signal line (Section 1.7, p. 26; Figure 1-1).
4. In VESA, firmware is implementation specific. (Section 1. 7.4,
p. 28; Fig. 1-2).
5. AUX CH Link and Device Services are used by Policy Makers
for both link and device management both in the Source Device and the Sink
Device. (Section 2.5, p. 108).
6. A repeater and a demultiplexer are coupled to auxiliary (AUX
CH) and native sink device channels. (p. 28; p. 33-37; p. 89; Figs. 1-2; 2-1;
2-3).
7. Various AUX CH device services include native auxiliary
channel services and mapping of I2C onto Auxiliary Channel device
services. (p. 89, Fig. 3).
8. The stream reconstruction by the link layer in the Sink Device
must be a mirror image of what take place within the Source Device,
wherein data unpacking must take place to reconstruct pixel data from the
data characters transported over the main link. (pp. 59---60, "2.2.2 Stream
Reconstruction in the Sink").
4
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
III. ANALYSIS
Appellants do not raise any contentions regarding the Examiner's
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-3 (Final Act. 6; Ans. 17-18).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Regarding the§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 22-36, Appellants
contend VESA does not discuss or suggest" ... receiving the output signal
by a multiplexer coupled to the sink device auxiliary channel, the
multiplexer being coupled to an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) auxiliary
channel device servicer and a native auxiliary channel device servicer ... "
(App. Br. 12). In particular, Appellants contend "the sink device includes
both an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) auxiliary channel device servicer and a
native auxiliary channel device servicer (App. Br. 10). According to
Appellants, "VESA describes the main stream to main link lane mapping that
is performed on the source device side" (id. at 12), and thus "it is unclear
how [VESA] supports the Examiner's assertion that 'all the data like
operating system, software driver, firmware, or hardware state machine from
the storage of a source device" would be "outputting by the auxiliary
channel to the Displayport connection to the auxiliary channel of the sink
device having a non-volatile memory"' (App. Br. 13, emphasis omitted).
We consider all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejections
under § 103. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
5
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
Appellants' arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings
and arguments below.
We find no error with the Examiner's finding, "VESA shows that data
sending from the source device is packed in a packet of stream data and is
unpacked at the sink device by ... de-multiplexing" wherein "the Link
Layer comprises 'Native AUX CH' and 'I2C AUX CH"' (App. Br. 22; FF 3,
6-8). We find no error with the Examiner's finding VESA's "AUX CH
Link Services and AUX CH Device services" teach or at least suggest
claim 1 's "auxiliary channel device servicer" and "native auxiliary device
servicer." (Id.). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
"[t]he connection of circuits between PHY [Physical] Layer and DPCD
[Display Port Configuration Data] and EDID [Extended Display
Identification Data]" for disclosing and suggesting the claimed features of
"receiving the output signal. .. coupled to the sink device auxiliary channel"
that is "coupled to an Inter-integrated Circuit (I2C) auxiliary channel device
servicer and a native auxiliary channel device servicer" (Ans. 22-23,
emphasis omitted). We also agree with the Examiner finding VESA's link
layer and PHY layer teach integrated circuits that are coupled to DeMUX
and replicators thereby teaching or at least suggesting a "multiplexer."
(Final Act. 9, FF 6-8).
Appellants also contend "[T]here is no motivation for combining Lai
with the Display Port interface [as disclosed by VESA] and doing so appears
to be the result of improper hindsight reasoning." (App. Br. 9, see also App.
Br. 13). In particular, Appellants contend "the Examiner attempts to
combine the teachings from different video interface standards" wherein
6
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
"conventional technologies cannot be employed to update firmware in a
display control device with the DisplayPort Interface" (id.).
\Ve note the Supreme Court has clearly stated the "combination of
familiar elements according to know11 methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int? Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). That is, when considering obviousness of a
combination of knoi.vn elements, i.e., multiplexers, and updating firmware in
accordance with a new standard, the operative question is thus "whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions." Id. at 417. The skilled artisan is "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
Here, VESA teaches compliance with Policy l\1akers, where Policy
I\/fakers may be implemented as firmware. (Ans. 4, FF 5). In VESA, the
updating firmware is implementation specific, thus not excluding L.ai' s
implementation method. (FF 4). In addition, Lai references VESA's
integrated circuit coupled to Circuit (I2C) auxiliary channel device servicer
and a native auxiliary channel device servicer. (FF 1 ). In fact, Lai
specifically teaches solving a need for the same problem as addressed by the
claims at issue: a system and method for permitting the rapid transfer and
upgrade of the firmware of a display. (FF 2).
\Ve agree with the Examiner that applying Lai's firmware updating
teachings to VESA's DisplayPmi would have yielded no "unexpected
result" and would have been obvious to try to update firmware with a new
standard given it is a standard that must be complied with. (Ans. 10).
Appellants present no evidence that Lai's teaching of finnware
updating would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
7
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
skill in the art" to combine with VESA's DisplayPort standard. Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings
and Appellants arguments do not persuade us that such firmware updating
cannot be accomplished by a skilled artisan using VESA' s DisplayPort
standard. (Ans. 19). Instead, we find that it would have been well within
the skill of one skilled in the art to modify Lai' s method of updating
firmware with the VESA's DisplayPort standard. (Although we note the
Display Port standard is not even recited in the disputed claims).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2 and 3, not separately argued.
Regarding independent claim 4, Appellants contend
The Office Action does not point out with particularity where
VESA discloses in the text found in pp. 33-37 the operation of
"outputting, by a selector circuit coupled to the main link and the
sink device auxiliary channel, the updated firmware with the
predetermined signal format, wherein outputting by the selector
circuit is performed according to a detection result." For at least
this reason, the rejection of claim 4 should be withdrawn.
(App. Br. 19).
8
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
(Id.)
Appellants also contend
As a separate basis for withdrawing the rejection of claim
4, Appellants respectfully submit that the cited references fail to
disclose or suggest storing, by a storage circuit in a source device
with a transmission interface distinct from the DISPLAY
interface, and providing an updated firmware.
However, we agree with the Examiner's finding Lai's internet 240,
storage device 23 5 and memory device 215 all teach the contested storing
limitation (Ans. 27-31 ). As the Examiner also notes, Appellants'
Specification provides no specifics for the claimed "selector" circuit (Ans.
30). We agree that Appellants present no evidence to rebut the Examiner's
reliance on VESA's multiple multiplexers to teach or at least suggest claim
term "selector circuit." (Ans. 30, citing VESA Fig. 2-1, 2-8).
On this record, we are unpersuaded of any reversible error in the
Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 4, and also of claims 5-8, not separately argued, which depend
therefrom.
Further, while Appellants raise additional arguments for patentability
of claims 22-36, rejected on the same basis as claim 1, we find that the
Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the Answer by a
preponderance of the evidence. (Ans. 31-35). Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein
by reference. Consequently, we have found no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 22-36.
9
Appeal2015-002196
Application 12/275,912
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 22-36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10