Ex Parte Hoeck et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 23, 2009

10885500 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GUENTER HOECK, MICHAEL ABLER,
THOMAS BARTHOLOMAE, and MANFRED MAUSER
____________

Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 26, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (filed July 9, 2007), the Answer (mailed
October 29, 2007), and the Reply Brief (filed January 2, 2008) for the
respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the representation of teletext
information as an image on a display device. A character is selected from a
pixel matrix character set associated with each encoded teletext character
and the selected character is represented pixel by pixel on the display device.
The selected characters are represented in first and second teletext pages on
the display device with the first teletext page being oriented above the
second teletext page in the vertical direction. (See generally Spec. 2:25-
3:22).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for representing teletext information in an image on a
display device, the method comprising the steps of:
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

3
receiving a teletext signal having a sequence of a plurality of encoded
teletext characters;
providing a first character set having a plurality of characters, each
character in the first character set being constructed from a matrix of m x n
pixels, each of the encoded teletext characters corresponding to one of the
characters in the first character set;
selecting a character from the first character set; and
representing the selected character pixel by pixel on the display
device, where pixel information from first lines of the pixel matrix of the
selected character is presented in even-numbered lines of the image when
representing the selected character on the display device and where pixel
information from second lines of the pixel matrix of the selected character is
presented in the odd-numbered lines of the image when representing the
selected character on the display device,
and where the selected characters are represented in first and second
teletext pages in the image on the display device, the first teletext page being
oriented above the second teletext page in a vertical direction within the
image on the display device.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following prior art to show
unpatentability:
Maeda US 4,677,432 Jun. 30, 1987
Kinghorn US 4,698,677 Oct. 6, 1987
Ando US 5,109,279 Apr. 28, 1992
Eland US 5,200,739 Apr. 6, 1993
Park US 5,635,987 Jun. 3, 1997
Kretz US 6,502,241 B1 Dec. 31, 2002
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

4
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, and
Park.
Claims 8, 15-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, Park,
and Eland.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, and Ando.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues before us are whether Appellants have
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in determining that Maeda discloses:
a) the pixel by pixel representation of a selected character on a
display device; and
b) the presentation of information from first lines of a pixel matrix
in even-numbered lines of a display device and the presentation of
information from second lines of the pixel matrix in odd-numbered lines of
the display device.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following relevant findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Maeda discloses (col. 1, ll. 14-18) a television broadcasting
system in which the vertical blanking period of a television program is used
to broadcast various kinds of information such as news, weather, etc.
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

5
2. Maeda also discloses (Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 19-42) a display
apparatus for receiving television broadcasts including a CPU 1, a pattern
memory 2, a control circuit 6, and a CRT display 5.
3. Maeda further discloses (Figs. 1, 2; col. 1, ll. 43-54) that the
horizontal addresses of the pattern memory 2 correspond to the horizontal
scanning position of the display picture screen while the vertical addresses
correspond to the vertical scanning position of the display picture screen.
4. Maeda illustrates and describes (Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 3-13) the
display of a character “A” on the CRT display screen 5 in which line
information from the pattern memory 2 is used during both the odd and even
display field periods of the display screen 5.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C. §
103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . .
. . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

6
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
I. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 based on the
combination of Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, and Park.
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1 and 7, Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure by the
Examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. Appellants’ arguments do not attack the Examiner’s basis for
combining Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, and Park, but, rather, focus on the
alleged deficiency of Maeda in disclosing the claimed feature of displaying
pixel information from first and second lines, respectively, of a pixel matrix
in the even-numbered and odd-numbered lines, respectively, of a display
device. According to Appellants (App. Br. 9, 14, 15), the Examiner’s
reliance on the Figure 2 illustration of Maeda is in error because this figure
of Maeda is merely an illustration of character pattern data written in pattern
memory 2, and not an illustration of a display of a character.
In a related argument (App. Br. 10-13, 15-18; Reply Br. 1-3),
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on the illustration in Figure
3 of Maeda is also in error. In Appellants’ view, Maeda’s Figure 3
illustration merely describes a conventional method of displaying pixel
information in which the same pixel information is represented in an odd-
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

7
numbered line of a display field and also in the even-numbered line of the
following display field. Thus, Appellants contend that Maeda displays pixel
information in a redundant manner for consecutive pairs of lines rather in a
sequential or alternating manner as presently claimed.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive of any error in
the Examiner’s stated position. Initially, we find no error in the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 4, 11) that the character representation in the pattern memory 2
illustrated in Figure 2 of Maeda corresponds to the claimed pixel by pixel
character representation on the “display device” since Maeda’s pattern
memory 2 is part of the “display device” illustrated in Figure 1 of Maeda.
As pointed out by the Examiner (id.), there is no claimed requirement that a
character actually be displayed, but, rather, only that it be represented on a
“display device.”
We further find that even assuming, arguendo, that the language of
independent claims 1 and 7 can be interpreted as requiring the actual display
of characters represented in a pixel memory, there is no claim language that
requires sequential or alternating line display or line-by-line matching as
argued by Appellants. Conversely, there is no claim language which
precludes the redundant display of pixel information in consecutive odd and
even display lines as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 of Maeda.
For example, the pixel representation in the first lines (e.g., the odd-
numbered lines) of the pattern memory 2 in Maeda will be displayed in the
odd-numbered lines of the screen display 5 and the pixel representation in
the second lines (e.g., the even-numbered lines) of the pattern memory 2 will
be displayed in the even-numbered lines of the screen display. While
Appellants are correct that the pixel information from the odd-numbered
Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

8
first lines in Maeda’s Figure 2 memory will also be displayed in a redundant
fashion in the even-numbered lines of the display, and the even-numbered
line stored information will be redundantly displayed in the odd-numbered
display lines, there is no claim language which precludes such an
occurrence.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as dependent claims
2-5 and 9-14, not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

II. The rejection of claims 8, 15-17, and 20 based on the
combination of Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, Park, and Eland.
This rejection is sustained as well. We find no error in the Examiner’s
application of the teletext decoder teachings of Eland to the combination of
Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, and Park. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 20-23)
rely on those made with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, which
arguments we found to be unpersuasive as discussed supra.

III. The rejection of claims 18 and 19 based on the combination of
Kinghorn, Kretz, Maeda, and Ando.
We find no error in the Examiner’s application of the screen division
teachings of Ando to the combination of Kinghorn, Kretz, and Maeda.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 24) rely on those made for independent
claim 7, which we have found to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s rejection is sustained.

Appeal 2009-001845
Application 10/885,500

9
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting appealed
claims 1-5 and 7-20 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-20, all
of the appealed claims, is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc

O’Shea Getz P.C.
1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115