Ex Parte Hsieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2015

11852682 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MING-JANE HSIEH,
JIN-SHENG GONG, and CHIEN-HUA HSIEH
1

________________

Appeal 2012-011671
Application 11/852,682
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants invented a “digital TV system 200 [that] includes an
analog front end . . . for receiving [a] digital TV signal, a digital TV backend
controller 210, an analog TV receiver 250 . . . , a[n] LCD TV controller 260,

1
Realtek Semiconductor Corporation is the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2012-011671
Application 11/852,682

2

and a panel 270.” Spec. 3–4. In at least one disclosed embodiment, these
parts “are implemented separately in one or two integrated circuit chips.
And these chips are integrated in one or several printed circuit boards.” Id.
at 4.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A TV system comprising:
a first integrated circuit (IC) chip, comprising:
a first logic module, for executing a first video
process on a received video signal; and
a second logic module, for generating a still or a
corresponsively still image signal;
a first transmission interface, coupled to said first
IC chip, for transmitting said video signal processed by
said first logic module through a first transmission form;
a second transmission interface, coupled to said
first IC chip, for transmitting said still or corresponsively
still image signal generated by said second logic module
through a second transmission form;
a second IC chip, coupled to said first transmission
interface and said second transmission interface, said second
IC chip comprising:
a third logic module, for executing a second video
process on said processed video signal from said first
transmission interface; and
a fourth logic module, for blending said video
signal processed by said third logic module with said still
or corresponsively still image signal from said second
transmission interface to generate a blended signal; and
a display panel coupled to said fourth logic module, for
displaying according to said blended signal.
Appeal 2012-011671
Application 11/852,682

3

Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kaylani (US 7,525,600 B2; Apr. 28, 2009). Ans. 4–8.
ISSUE
2

Did the Examiner err in finding Kaylani discloses: (1) “a first
integrated circuit (IC) chip, comprising . . . a first transmission interface . . .
[and] a second transmission interface” and (2) “a second IC chip, coupled to
said first transmission interface and said second transmission interface,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kaylani’s transmission
interfaces associated with an integrated HDTV chip discloses a first
integrated circuit chip comprising a first transmission interface and a
second transmission interface. Ans. 4–5 (citing Kaylani Figs. 1–7, Abstract,
and cols. 2–13). The Examiner further finds Kaylani discloses a second IC
chip coupled to said first transmission interface and said second
transmission interface. Ans. 5 (citing Kaylani cols. 3–13).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Kaylani “is directed
towards a single chip,” rather than disclosing “the functionality described is
performed on a second chip.” App. Br. 10; see also id. at 9 (citing Kaylani
col. 1, ll. 36–55). Appellants’ contentions are supported by numerous
examples showing Kaylani specifically discloses a single integrated high

2
Appellants raise additional issues. However, we only address this
dispositive issue.
Appeal 2012-011671
Application 11/852,682

4

definition television chip for analog and digital reception. See, e.g., Kaylani
Title, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 3, l. 36–col. 4, l. 12.
The Examiner does not present findings showing Kaylani discloses
the claimed functionality performed on multiple chips. Instead, the
Examiner erroneously interprets the claimed “first IC chip and second IC
chip [as] not [being] distinct from each other.” Ans. 9; see also Ans. 5.
However, claim 1 explicitly recites both first and second integrated circuit
chips, each coupled to first and second transmission interfaces; thus the
claimed first and second integrated circuit chips are distinct from each other.
Therefore, the Examiner’s findings do not show Kaylani discloses: (1) “a
first integrated circuit (IC) chip, comprising . . . a first transmission interface
. . . [and] a second transmission interface” and (2) “a second IC chip,
coupled to said first transmission interface and said second transmission
interface,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–8, which depend therefrom. Independent
claim 9 similarly recites distinct first and second integrated circuit chips
(e.g., “a first logic module on a first integrated circuit (IC) chip . . . [and] a
third logic module on a second IC chip”). Thus, for similar reasons we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 9, and
claims 10–13, which depend therefrom. Independent claim 14 similarly
recites distinct first and second integrated circuit chips (e.g., “executing, in a
first integrated circuit (IC) chip . . . [and] blending, in a second IC chip”).
Thus, for similar reasons we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claim 14, and claims 15–18, which depend therefrom.
Appeal 2012-011671
Application 11/852,682

5

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18.

REVERSED
cjr