Ex Parte Feng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13711509 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131711,509 12/11/2012
77399 7590 08/24/2016
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jinghua FENG
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.
HW711830 4545
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINGHUA FENG, JINYONG MA, and HEYI CHEN
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants filed on May 27, 2016 a Request for Rehearing under 37
C.F.R. § 41.52 following our Decision on Appeal mailed April 4, 2016, in
which we affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We have considered the arguments presented by Appellants in the
Request for Rehearing, but we are not persuaded that any points were
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in issuing the Decision. We
have provided herein additional explanations, but decline to change our
Decision in view of Appellants' arguments.
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
ANALYSIS
A. Request for Rehearing Lacks Particular Statement of Points
Misapprehended or Overlooked
A request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the
Board's opinion reflecting its decision. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52; see also Ex
parte Quist, 95 USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) (quoting
'fvfanual of Patent Examining Procedure (1V1PEP) § 1214.03 (E9R-11.2013
March 2014)). Appellants do not argue with particularity that any points
have been misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision.
B. Rearguing Point Lost on Appeal
Appellants' Request for Rehearing asserts the Examiner's reason to
modify Hochmuth with Takano is erroneous. (Req. Reh'g 1-5.) A request
for rehearing is not an opportunity to rehash or reargue points merely
because Appellants do not agree with the result of the Board's decision. The
proper course for an appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek
judicial review. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. \Ve deny the Request for
Rehearing for this additional reason.
C. Appellants' Arguments Are Not Persuasive of Examiner Error
Even if we could reconsider Appellants' arguments presented in their
Request for Rehearing, we would not be persuaded of Examiner error.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by modifying
Hochmuth to send A/B buffer contents to distinct devices because of the
benefits that result in displaying separate/distinct slides on separate display
devices according to Takano's teachings. (Req. Reh'g 4.) As we stated in
our Decision on Appeal, we agree with the Examiner's reasons to combine
2
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
Hochmuth and Takano. (Dec. 4.) A person of ordinary skill would have
appreciated the benefit of sending outputs of different A/B buffer contents to
separately display distinct slides or images. Id. For example, this would
allow a presenter to address more than one slide at once, or would allow
participants further time to consider slides a presenter previously addressed.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument again fails to address the
Examiner's more detailed reason to combine as set forth in the Final Office
Action ("It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the method of Hochmuth with the teaching
of Takano so as to provide easily viewable images to viewers in order to
share the information between teleconferencing sites (Takano, [0009]).")
(Final Act. 4.) (Emphasis added.) A person of ordinary skill would have
understood that Hochmuth' s remote graphics system (see Hochmuth i-fi-f l,
21, claim 1) is useful in the context of teleconferencing, because it allows
display of graphics on remote displays. Likewise, Appellants' Specification
is directed to the same need or problem as the references regarding
improving user experience in a videoconferencing system. (Spec. i-fi-13, 4.)
The Supreme Court has stated "any need or problem known in the
field and addressed by a patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed." (KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007).) ("KSR"). In this case, given that the need or problem of
improving user experience in teleconferencing is taught by the Specification
and the cited references, there were apparent reasons to support the
combination of references. (See KSR at 418.) Therefore, Appellants'
argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's stated reason to
combine the references.
3
Appeal2014-007785
Application 13/711,509
D. New Arguments
In the Request for Rehearing, for the first time, Appellants further
allege several additional distinctions relative to the cited references. (Req.
Reh'g 4--5.) Specifically, Appellants argue that the claimed "sending"
occurs in response to the claimed comparison of current and previous frame
images, a feature alleged not to be present in the cited references. (Id.)
Appellants also argue the current and previous relevant image frames are not
likely to be immediately adjacent to one another in the claimed method and
apparatus, whereas they are adjacent to one another in Hochmuth so that a
viewer would not perceive them as different. (Id.) On the basis of these
allegations, Appellants conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not modify Takano' s display of distinct slides to result in the claimed
invention. (Id.)
New arguments are not permitted in a Request for Rehearing except
under circumstances that are not applicable to this case. (See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(l}-(4).) Even if we could consider these arguments, there is no
commensurate language in the claims to support them.
DECISION
We grant Appellants' request to the extent that we have reconsidered
our Decision, but we deny the Request for Rehearing with respect to making
any change thereto. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) remains AFFIRMED.
REHEARING DENIED
4