Ex Parte Kambhatla

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

14225783 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/225,783 03/26/2014 Srikanth Kambhatla ITL.3124US (P62412) 3212
47795 7590 04/21/2017
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
POLO, GUSTAVO D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIKANTH KAMBHATLA
Appeal 2016-008719
Application 14/225,7831
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-30, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008719
Application 14/225,783
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a bi-directional display interface that
transmits or receives audio/visual information and input/output information.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
enabling a sink device to stream audio/visual content to a
source device over a bidirectional line of a display interface; and
enabling the sink device to receive audio/visual and
input/output information from a source device, and to transmit
audio, video and input/output information to a source device over
the display interface bidirectional line.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1,3,4, 11-14, 16, 17, 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kambhatla et al. (US
2012/0063376 Al; Mar. 15, 2012) and Park et al. (US 2013/0080665 Al;
Mar. 28, 2013). Final Act. 2-5.
The Examiner adds Herlein (US 2011/0004704 Al; Jan. 6, 2011) to
reject claims 2, 15, and 24 (Final Act. 5); Kobayashi (US 2010/0293287 Al;
Nov. 18, 2010) to reject claims 5-9, 18, and 27 (Final Act. 5-6); Witwer
(US 2006/0248570 Al; Nov. 2, 2006) to reject claims 10 and 19 (Final Act.
6-7), and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art to reject claim 30 (Final Act. 7).
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. Appellant persuades us
2
Appeal 2016-008719
Application 14/225,783
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
The Examiner finds the combination of Kambhatla and Park teaches
or suggests “enabling the sink device to receive audio/visual and/or
input/output information from a source device and to transmit audio and/or
video and/or input/output information to a source device over the display
interface.” Final Act. 2 (citing Kambhatla Figs. 3, 13). In particular, the
Examiner finds Kambhatla teaches enabling the sink device “to transmit
audio and/or video and/or input/output information to a source device over
the display interface,” where the display interface uses the DisplayPort
standard. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the “and/or” limitation requires only one element in the series.
Id. Because the Examiner finds Kambhatla teaches transmitting audio/visual
information, and Park teaches transmitting and receiving information on a
bidirectional line, the Examiner finds the combination teaches the recited
limitation. Ans. 8-9.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the combination of
Kambhatla and Park does not teach or suggest “enabling the sink device to
receive audio/visual and input/output information from a source device, and
to transmit audio, video and input/output information to a source device over
the display interface bidirectional line,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant
argues Kambhatla only teaches transmitting audio/visual information over
the display interface, not input/output information. App. Br. 7. Appellant
argues the Examiner has misinterpreted the claims (Reply Br. 1), which
recite “enabling the sink device to receive audio/visual and input/output
information from a source device, and to transmit audio, video and
3
Appeal 2016-008719
Application 14/225,783
input/output information to a source device over the display interface
bidirectional line.” (Emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred. The
Examiner’s findings are limited to Kambhatla teaching transmitting
audio/visual information over a display interface. Final Act. 2; Ans. 8. The
Examiner does not find Kambhatla teaches transmitting audio/visual and
input/output information. See id. The Examiner appears to be applying an
incorrect version of the claim that recites audio/visual and/or input/output
information, but the claim was amended in Appellant’s September 30, 2015
Reply to Office Action to replace this language with the recited audio/visual
and input/output information limitation.
Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred. On this
record, we, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of claim 1, independent
claims 14 and 23, which recite similar limitations, and dependent claims 2-
13, 15-22, and 24-30.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30.
REVERSED
4