Ex Parte Dohrmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2012

09981287 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BERNHARD DOHRMANN
____________________

Appeal 2010-006327
Application 09/981,287
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and JOSEPH A.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006327
Application 09/836,953

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 11, 12, and 42-78. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer implemented delivery system for instructional
information comprising:
at least one source that provides data, the data comprising
instructional information and background information;
at least one user interface that receives input from a user, the input
related to execution of the data;
a plurality of output devices in a classroom that receive audio and
visual components of the instructional information and background
information, wherein the plurality of output devices includes at least
three visual displays and wherein display of the instructional
information is controlled by an operator and display of the
background information is controlled by an auto-switching algorithm;

at least one processor that generates audio and visual components
from the instructional information and background information from
provided data to at least one output device;

a computer-readable medium accessible by the processor and
including at least one predetermined rule comprising instructions for:

displaying instructional information selected by the operator on
the visual displays until a triggering event;
displaying the instructional information in a random pattern on
one or more of the visual displays in response to the triggering
event, wherein the random pattern comprises displaying the
instructional information in a random sequence wherein the
instructional information moves from one combination of
Appeal 2010-006327
Application 09/836,953

3
one or more of the visual displays to another combination
of one or more of the visual displays at a random interval,
wherein a combination of the one or more visual displays
comprises a number of the visual displays less than all of
the visual displays; and

displaying background images of the background information
on one or more visual displays not displaying instructional
information, the background images displayed and replaced
by the auto-switching algorithm that controls selection,
sequence, and duration of the display of the background
images; and communication links that transmit data and
information between the at least one source, the user interface,
the processor and the output devices.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Konopka US 5,850.250 Dec. 15, 1998
Freiberger US 6,034,652 Mar. 7, 2000
Slezak US 6,647,119 B1 Nov. 11, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 42-46, and 49-78 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Konopka in view of Freiberger.
The Examiner rejected claim 7, 11, 12, 47 and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Konopka in view of Freiberger and in further
view of Slezak.

Appeal 2010-006327
Application 09/836,953

4
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1, 59 and 67 require a particular pattern of
displaying instructional information versus background information on
plural display devices. The following is the pattern requirement1 of
representative claim 1 which is broadest:
…displaying the instructional information in a
random pattern on one or more of the visual
displays in response to the triggering event,
wherein the random pattern comprises displaying
the instructional information in a random sequence
wherein the instructional information moves from
one combination of one or more of the visual
displays to another combination of one or more of
the visual displays at a random interval, wherein a
combination of the one or more visual displays
comprises a number of the visual displays less than
all of the visual displays; and
displaying background images of the background
information on one or more visual displays not
displaying instructional information, the
background images displayed and replaced by the
auto-switching algorithm that controls selection,
sequence, and duration of the display of the
background images;…

The Examiner relies on Freiberger to meet the above-listed pattern
requirement of the independent claims. (Answer 5-6). However, Freiberger
deals with the presentation of content on a single screen (Abstract), whereas,
each independent claim requires the parsing of two different types of content

1 Each independent claim requires computer readable medium having
instructions for effecting the recited pattern display. As such, we construe
these instructions as positive claim limitations configuring an otherwise
general purpose computer into a special purpose computer.
Appeal 2010-006327
Application 09/836,953

5
between plural display devices with the instructional information type
content being displayed in a random pattern on the visual displays and
background information replacing the displaced instructional information as
the instructional information is randomly moved.
While the Examiner found that Freiberger at col. 4:31-41; 47-55; and
4:60-5:10 discloses the content display pattern at issue (Answer 5-6), a
review of Freiberger at these sections reveals that it only generally discloses
that the system is capable of displaying different content at different times a
single display device:
“the duration of time that the image or images
generated from a set of content data can be
displayed, an order in which the images generated
from a plurality of sets of content data are
displayed, a time or times at which the image or
images generated from a set of content data can or
cannot be displayed, and/or constraint on the
number of times that the image or images
generated from a set of content data can be
displayed.”
Col.4, ll.48-55
Thus, absent a showing by the Examiner of how this disclosure from
Freiberger would result in plural display devices presenting different content
in the pattern requirements required by the independent claims, we cannot
sustain the rejection.
Since claims 2-4, 7, 11, 12, 42-58, and 60-66, 68-78 depend from one
of independent claims 1, 59 and 67 and since we cannot sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1, 59, and 67 the rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 7,
11, 12, 42-58, and 60-66, 68-78 likewise cannot be sustained.

Appeal 2010-006327
Application 09/836,953

6
REVERSED

MP