Ex Parte HO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

12367363 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/367,363 0210612009
102324 7590 08/22/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Yu-Li HO
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.
NVDA/TP-08-0227-US 1 9723
EXAMINER
NDIA YE, CHEIKH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
kcruz@artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com
mmccauley@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID YU-LI HO, GERRIT ARY SLAVENBURG, and
ANDREI VICTOR RYLIN
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367 ,363
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Nvidia Corporation as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367,363
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to mating a
signal transmitting device and a viewing device. (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for mating a signal transmitting device and a
plurality of viewing devices, comprising:
determining presence of the signal transmitting device
and each of the viewing devices;
selecting a different unique code from a pre-determined
group of codes assigned to the signal transmitting
device for each of the viewing devices; and
for each of the viewing devices, transmitting a data
packet that includes the unique code corresponding
to the view device [sic]. 2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kane et al. (US 2010/0085424 Al, pub.
Apr. 8, 2010) and Ootsuka et al. (US 2008/0169907 Al, pub. July 17, 2008).
(Final Act. 4--9.)
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kane, Ootsuka, and Stem et al. (US
2003/0133569 Al, pub. July 17, 2003). (Final Act. 9--11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kane, Ootsuka, and Chang et al. (US 2010/026794
Al, pub. Feb. 4, 2010). (Final Act. 11-12.)
2 We understand "view device" to refer to "viewing device."
2
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367,363
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ootsuka, Stem, and Khan et al. (US 2009/0167845Al,
pub. July 2, 2009). (Final Act. 12-13.)
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kane, Ootsuka, and Khan. (Final Act. 13-14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stem and Kane. (Final Act. 14--16.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 3
Issue One: Whether the combination of Kane and Ootsuka teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitations, "selecting a different unique
code from a pre-determined group of codes assigned to the signal
transmitting device for each of the viewing devices; and for each of the
viewing devices, transmitting a data packet that includes the unique code
corresponding to the view device," and the similar limitations recited in
independent claim 8. (App. Br. 10-12.)
Issue Two: Whether the combination of Stem and Kane teaches or
suggests the claim 15 limitation, "receive a first unique code for pairing with
an emitter, the first unique code being different for each of the viewing
devices." (App. Br. 12-13.)
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 13, 2014); the Reply
Brief (filed Nov. 18, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 8, 2013);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sept. 18, 2014) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367,363
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 4--16) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(Ans. 14--21) to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We concur
with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the
following.
Issue One
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Kane of displaying three-dimensional ("3-D") images in which a projector
controls 3-D glasses by transmitting signals to control the glasses, and in
particular one embodiment described below as follows:
In yet another embodiment, the glasses are of the electro-
optical shuttering type, and the processor causes a different
shuttering signal to be sent to at least one pair of glasses. This
can be accomplished by transmitting different types of
synchronization signals simultaneously using multiplexing. In
this embodiment, each pair of glasses has a unique
identification known to the processor, and the synchronization
signal contains information that designates which glasses can
decode which synchronization signals.
(Kane Fig. 2, i-f 23, cited in Final Act. 15.)4
4 We note the Examiner specifically cites Paragraph 23 of Kane in rejecting
independent claim 15. (Final Act. 15.) The Examiner's reliance on this
disclosure in Kane applies to like effect with respect to the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 8.
4
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367,363
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Ootsuka of a remote
control transmitter and a controlled apparatus that are paired by a pairing
process that remotely controls the controlled apparatus, in which the
controlled apparatus may be identified via a "unique ID [that] may be
assigned based on, for example, the manufacturing date and the product
number." (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 15; Ootsuka Abstract, i-f 70.)
Appellants argue the Examiner admits Kane does not teach or suggest
the limitations of claim 1 at issue, and further argues Ootsuka does not
transmit unique codes from the controller to the controlled device, which is
counter to the claim requirement that the unique code be transmitted to the
"view device." (App. Br. 10-12, Reply Br. 7.)
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive, as they focus on the
individual references, whereas the Examiner finds the combination of
references teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
( CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is whether the combination of
references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention
to a person having ordinary skill in the art). We note in particular the
disclosure in Kane quoted above whereby unique identification codes are
sent via a transmitter from the projector to the 3-D glasses to control the
glasses. (Kane i-f 23.)
Issue Two
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Kane discussed above, and also on the disclosure in Stem of securely
providing privately viewable data in a publicly viewable display, by
interspersing private data frames among public data frames according to a
5
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367,363
sequencing pattern transmitted to glasses with shutters activated by the
pattern, with the pattern encoded with a serial number "so that only
corresponding active glasses can decode the ... pattern." (Final Act. 14--15;
Stem Abstract, i-f 48.)
Appellants argue the serial number disclosed in Stem is not
necessarily unique because "the serial number could be the serial number of
the RF link, in which case, would be the same for all active glasses 2 storing
the serial number." (App. Br. 13.) This argument is not persuasive - the
reference in Stem to a "serial number" that ensures "only corresponding
active glasses can decode the ... pattern" at least teaches or suggests use of
a unique serial number. In addition, paragraph 23 of Kane also teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of independent claim 15 for the reasons
discussed above with respect to similar limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 8.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of independent claims 1 and 8 over Kane and Ootsuka, and of independent
claim 15 over Stem and Kane.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5, 9, 18, and
19 over Kane and Ootsuka, of claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 14 over Kane,
Ootsuka, and Stem, of claims 3 and 10 over Kane, Ootsuka, and Chang, of
claim 12 over Ootsuka, Stem, and Khan, of claim 7 over Kane, Ootsuka, and
Khan, and of claims 15-17 over Stem and Kane, which rejections are not
argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 12, 13.)
6
Appeal 2015-001857
Application 12/367,363
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19.
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
7