Ex parte JENKIN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 1998

08011453 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 29, 1993,1
entitled "Large-Scale, Touch-Sensitive Video Display."
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte MICHAEL JENKIN
and JOHN K. TSOTSOS

Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,4531

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-27.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention is directed to a video display
having multiple display screens, such as a video wall, each
display having its own processor and touch-sensitive panel.
As shown in figure 9, the processors 3A-3D with corresponding
display screens 2A-2D and touch-sensitive panels 14A-14D, are
connected to a processor 1D acting as a controlling processor
via a network 15. Each processor can be operated
independently of the other processors or in conjunction with
the other processors.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A touch-sensitive display, comprising:
a) a plurality of basic display units each
comprising separately controllable processor means having
an output connected to at least one display screen, said
at least one display screen of respective ones of said
basic display units being arranged so as to form a
tessellation;
b) a network for facilitating communication
between said respective ones of said basic display units;
c) at least one touch-sensitive panel overlying
said tessellation and means associated therewith for
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 3 -
receiving a user touch input over physical pixel
locations associated with said basic display units and in
response generating input command signals for identifying
said physical pixel locations, each processor means
further including a first input connected to the network
for receiving network communication and a second input
connected to at least one touch sensitive screen for
receiving input command signals corresponding to the user
touch input; and
d) further processor means functioning as a
controlling processor, including:
i) means for receiving said input command
signals identifying said physical pixel locations
and in response converting said input command
signals to modified input command signals associated
with logical pixel locations in said tessellation;
ii) means for receiving said modified input
command signals and in response generating graphical
command signals for operating on said logical pixel
locations in said tessellation;
iii) means for receiving said graphical
command signals for operating on said logical pixel
locations in said tessellation and in response
converting said graphical command signals to
modified graphical command signals for operating on
said physical pixel locations associated with said
basic display units; and
iv) means for transmitting said modified
graphical command signals to said basic display
units via said network, in response to which said
plurality of basic display units generate a
graphical image across said tessellation.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Auer et al. (Auer) 4,725,694 February 16, 1988
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 4 -
Norwood 5,063,600 November 5, 1991
Brody 5,079,636 January 7, 1992
(filed February 23, 1990)
Row et al. (Row) 5,163,131 November 10, 1992
(filed September 8, 1989)
Caine 5,361,078 November 1, 1994
(filed November 9, 1990)
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 24, and 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Brody, Caine, and Norwood. The examiner finds that Brody
discloses a display device comprising a plurality of basic
display units, but recognizes (Examiner's Answer, page 4) that
Brody does not disclose a "separately controllable processor
means" for each "basic display unit" as recited in claim 1.
The examiner finds that "Caine discloses each display has
[its] own processor or driver for receiving data from
different source channels 22A-22D and for driving each display
unit in parallel" (Examiner's Answer, page 8) and, thus,
considers the video driver for each display equivalent to the
claimed "separately controllable processor means." The
examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brody with the
features of [an] independent driver for each screen as taught
by Caine so as to provide an independent control for each
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 5 -
display unit" (Examiner's Answer, page 4). The examiner finds
that Norwood teaches a transparent digitizing tablet mounted
on a flat panel display screen and concludes that "[i]n view
of the fact that a transparent touch panel can be mounted atop
a flat display screen used as an input device, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified Brody and Caine with the features of the touch panel
as taught by Norwood, since they are directed to use [of] a
plat [sic, flat] panel display device" (Examiner's Answer,
page 5).
Claims 4, 12-13, 17, and 25-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brody, Caine, and
Norwood, further in view of Auer.
Claims 9-10 and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Brody, Caine, and Norwood,
further in view of Row.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
position and to the Brief (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as
"Br__") for a statement of the appellants' position.
OPINION
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 6 -
The claims stand or fall together (Br4). Claim 1 is
analyzed as representative.
Appellants' two main arguments are that: (1) the video
drivers in Caine are not equivalent to the claimed "separately
controllable processor means" (Br8-10); and (2) the touch-
sensitive device in Norwood does not suggest multiple display
units, each display unit having an associated touch-sensitive
screen and processor means (Br10-12). Although not all of the
arguments made in support of these arguments are supported by
specific claim limitations, we nevertheless conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. We review the rejection by analyzing the
limitations of claim 1.
The first paragraph of claim 1 recites "a plurality of
basic display units each comprising separately controllable
processor means having an output connected to at least one
display." No function is recited for the "processor means";
thus, the term is not in means-plus-function format under
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph despite the use of the term
"means." A "processor" broadly encompasses a device for
reading out video information from a memory and a video driver
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 7 -
can broadly be considered a "processor means" at this point in
the claim. In particular, there is no recitation that the
processor "computes" anything. The term "separately
controllable" is not defined and is broadly met by the fact
that the video drivers operate independently.
Appellants argue that "the function of the video drivers
24A-24D [in Caine] is simply to read data from memories
22A-22D which all receive data from the same source (Host
Computer 10) and pass the sampled data to a display
screen" (Br9). This is true, but appellants do not state what
language of the claim requires the "processor means" to do
more.
Claim 1 further recites "each processor means further
including a first input connected to the network for receiving
network communication and a second input connected to at least
one touch sensitive screen for receiving input command signals
corresponding to the user touch input." Again, no function is
recited for the "processor means" that would define over the
video driver of Caine. Two inputs are recited. The input to
the video drivers from buses 44 in Caine are inputs "for
receiving network communication." However, we disagree with
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 8 -
the examiner's implicit conclusion that it would have been
obvious to provide an input to the individual video drivers to
receive input from touch-sensitive screens over the displays
as shown in Norwood. The video drivers in Caine only read
video information out of the memory and do not have the
capability to perform computations on data to process touch-
screen commands. It is not merely a matter of adding
instructions to the drivers to allow processing of touch-
sensitive information. Thus, there is no motivation to
provide an input to the drivers in Caine since the drivers are
incapable of processing the information. The video control in
Caine is the host computer 10 and we agree with appellants
that "a combination of Norwood with Caine and Brody would at
best result in a multiple screen display unit having a single
touch-sensitive screen over the entire multiple screen display
unit and a single processor responsive to the input from the
touch-sensitive screen and for computing the entire image to
be displayed on the multiple screens" (Br11). That is, the
touch-sensitive signals would be sent to host computer 10 and
not to individual drivers. For this reason alone, the
obviousness rejection must be reversed.
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 9 -
Claim 1 recites "further processor means functioning as a
controlling processor" which receives input command signals
and generates modified graphical command signals. The
examiner's rejection does not account for any of these
limitations. The examiner does not explain why, even if each
display screen was controlled by its own processor, it would
have been obvious to then send the command signals from the
touch-sensitive screens to a controlling processor and back
again to the individual processors. The systems in Brody and
Caine are one-directional signal systems, from the processor
or computer to the displays. In our opinion, one of ordinary
skill in the art would interpret the combination of Norwood
and Caine as suggesting the touch commands be directed to the
host computer 10 in Caine and not to the drivers and then to
the host computer. For this additional reason, the
obviousness rejection must be reversed.
The last subparagraph of claim 1 recites, as part of the
"further processor means," a "means for transmitting said
modified graphical command signals to said basic display units
via said network, in response to which said plurality of basic
display units generate a graphical image across said
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 10 -
tessellation." This limitation does not define what is meant
by "graphical command signals," which leaves the
interpretation open. Appellants argue that "according to the
present invention, graphical commands are sent to the
separately controllable processor means of each basic display
unit" (Br8) and "[e]ach processor means in turn computes the
image to be displayed on the display screen associated
therewith in accordance with the received graphical commands
and conveys the computed image to the display screen" (Br8).
We see nothing in claim 1 that requires that "each processor
computes the image to be displayed," as argued. The command
signals are sent to the basic display units, not necessarily
the processor means portion of the basic display unit. The
basic display units generate a graphical image, but they do
not necessarily compute the graphical image. The
specification describes that a command, such as
"putpixel(r,c)," can be executed by a display driver
(specification, page 8, lines 32+) and so does not necessarily
require computation by the processor. Nevertheless, none of
references suggests the operation of the controlling processor
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 11 -
to produce. For this further reason the rejection must be
reversed.
For the reasons enumerated above, the rejection of
claims 1-27 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
- 12 -
Alexander C. Johnson, Jr.
MARGER, JOHNSON,
McCOLLOM & STOLOWITZ, P.C.
1030 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, OR 97205