Ex Parte JIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13242856 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/242,856 09/23/2011
68103 7590 04/04/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sang-Hoon JIN
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.
0201-0419-1 7551
EXAMINER
YI, ALEXANDER J.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG-HOON JIN and HAN-SHIL CHOI
Appeal2014-007683
Application 13/242,856
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-33. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1-3 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Palin (EP 1553794 Al; July 13, 2005)
and Bloebaum (US 2007 /0093275 Al; Apr. 26, 2007). Non-Final Act. 2-
10.
Claims 7-9, 11-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26-29, and 31-33 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Palin,
Bloebaum, and Kato (JP 2004159099 A; June 3, 2004). Non-Final Act. 11-
26.
Appeal2014-007683
Application 13/242,856
Claims 10, 15, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Palin, Bloebaum, Kato, and Schavitz
(US 2004/0266402 Al; Dec. 30, 2004). Non-Final Act. 26-31.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a display control apparatus and
method in a mobile terminal capable of outputting video data to an external
display device in order for a user to enjoy concurrent service." Spec. 1: 13-
15. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A mobile terminal comprising:
a display unit;
an interface with which data is transmitted to an external
device; and
a controller configured
to determine whether the mobile terminal is connected to
the external device through the interface, wherein the external
device includes or is connectable to an external display unit,
to provide, when the mobile terminal is connected to the
external device through the interface, a screen currently being
displayed on the display unit to the external device,
to determine, when the screen currently being displayed
on the display unit is being provided to the external device,
whether data to be provided to the external device is video data,
and
to enable, if it is determined that data to be provided to
the external device is video data, the display unit to display data
other than the video data that is to be provided to the external
device, wherein at least some data among the data other than
video data is not displayed on the external display unit and
displayed only on the display unit, while the video data is being
displayed on the external display unit.
2
Appeal2014-007683
Application 13/242,856
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3 AND 19-21 OVER PALIN AND
BLOEBAUM
The Examiner finds the combination of Palin and Bloebaum teaches
all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner
relies on Palin for all limitations of claim 1, except for the recited (claim 1)
"the display unit to display data other than the video data that is to be
provided to the external device, wherein at least some data among the data
other than video data is not displayed on the external display unit and
displayed only on the display unit," for which the Examiner relies on
Bloebaum. Non-Final Act. 5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "[T]here is no disclosure that a determination is made of
whether the data to be provided is video data when the screen currently
being displayed on the display unit is being provided to the external device."
App. Br. 5. "Palin explains that data is supplied to the external device for
better viewing, regardless of the type of data." App. Br. 5; see also Reply
Br. 2-3 (Palin does not disclose a determination), and Reply Br. 3--4
(Bloebaum does not disclose a determination).
11. "Because Palin does not disclose that a determination is made,
it is not possible that Palin can disclose that a display unit is enabled based
on the result of the determination." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3.
111.
[L]ines 13-15 of paragraph [0017] [of Bloebaum], in their
entirety, merely disclose that a "display unit 212 may also be
used to present programming carried by the mobile television
broadcast signals." However, there is absolutely no disclosure
3
Appeal2014-007683
Application 13/242,856
of the claimed limitation. That is, there is no disclosure that
data is only displayed on the display unit of the mobile terminal
and not displayed on the external display unit.
App. Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of Palin
and Bloebaum teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding argument i, the Examiner finds Palin teaches the recited
(claim 1) "determine, when the screen currently being displayed on the
display unit is being provided to the external device, whether data to be
provided to the external device is video data." Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Palin i-f 11, 11. 1-5). We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our
own. Palin (i-f 11, 11. 1-5) discloses: "The image data received by the mobile
terminal comprises data to be ultimately reassembled into an image to be
displayed on a display either on the mobile device, on an another display
device, or on both of these devices." When image data is received by the
mobile terminal; and is displayed on both the mobile terminal and another
display device, Palin meets the argued limitation because reassembly of the
image data includes making the recited determination. With regard to Palin
i-fi-1 19 and 23-25 (see Reply Br. 2), these teachings of Palin do not change
our analysis; Palin's reassembly of image data meets the broad claim
language because reassembly of video data determines the data is video data.
Regarding argument ii, we find this argument unavailing because, as
explained above, Palin does disclose the recited determination.
Regarding argument iii, the Examiner finds Bloebaum teaches the
recited (claim 1) "the display unit to display data other than the video data
that is to be provided to the external device, wherein at least some data
among the data other than video data is not displayed on the external display
4
Appeal2014-007683
Application 13/242,856
unit and displayed only on the display unit." Non-Final Act. 5 (citing
Bloebaum i-f 17, 11. 13-15); see also Ans. 6-7 (citing Bloebaum i-fi-14, 17, 29-
30). We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
Bloebaum (i-f 29, 11. 10-16) discloses content earmarked for the
secondary display. We agree with the Examiner that "[a] data to be
displayed for the mobile (primary) terminal is a different data than the data
to be displayed for the external (secondary) display device since the data for
the secondary display device (external display device) is earmarked
specifically for the external (secondary) device only." Ans. 6. Bloebaum
(i-f 4) discloses forwarding selected channel content to the secondary display.
We agree with the Examiner that "the selected channel content data is
specifically intended only for the secondary (external) display device." Ans.
7; see also Bloebaum i-fi-117, 30 (mobile terminal displays a graphical user
interface). In short, when Bloebaum forwards earmarked content to the
secondary display, while displaying a graphical user interface on the mobile
terminal, Bloebaum meets the argued limitation.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 3, and 19-21, which are not separately argued with particularity.
See App. Br. 7.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7-9, 11-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26-29,
AND 31-33 OVER PALIN, BLOEBAUM, AND KATO
Appellants do not argue claims 7-9, 11-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26-29, and
31-33 with particularity. See App. Br. 7.
5
Appeal2014-007683
Application 13/242,856
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-9, 11-14,
16-18, 22-24, 26-29, and 31-33 for reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10, 15, 25, AND 30 OVER PALIN,
BLOEBAUM, KATO, AND SCHAVITZ
Appellants do not argue claims 10, 15, 25, and 30 with particularity.
See App. Br. 7.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 15, 25,
and 30 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-33 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
6