Ex Parte Keys

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2016

12983223 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/983,223 12/31/2010 Jeramie J. Keys
44306 7590 10/03/2016
WITHERS & KEYS, LLC
P. 0. BOX 71355
MARIE TT A, GA 30007-1355
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.
20013.0003USU1 9840
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERAMIE J. KEYS
Appeal2015-006474
Application 12/983,223
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-37. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies himself as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-006474
Application 12/983,223
THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to the display
of different full screen content on the same television at the same time from
the perspective of the viewer by displaying the content as two full screen
sequential frames. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of viewing different game content in a full
screen on a same television, comprising:
producing a multi-player split screen output from a game
console;
converting the multi-player split screen output to two
sequential full screen frames at the television;
viewing a first of the two sequential full screen frames
using a first pair of configured glasses that blocks a second of
the two sequential full screen frames; and
viewing the second of the two sequential full screen
frames using a second pair of configured glasses that blocks the
first of the t\~10 sequential fi.111 screen frames.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Zalewski (US 2010/0007582 Al, pub. Jan. 14, 2010). (Final
Act. 13-17.)2
2 The Examiner has withdrawn rejections of claims 24, 26, 28, and 32-37
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st Paragraph, and of claims 11, 24--27, 33, and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd Paragraph. (6/12/14 Advisory Action 2.)
2
Appeal2015-006474
Application 12/983,223
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issues: 3
First Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Zalewski
discloses the independent claim 1 limitation, "producing a multi-player split
screen output from a game console," and the similar limitation recited in
independent claims 6, 11, 16, 21, and 24. (App. Br. 10-19.)
Second Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Zalewski
discloses the independent claim 32 limitation, "outputting a frame packed
output from the game console that includes the first player game content in a
first region of the frame packed output and the second player game content
in a second region of the frame packed output," and the similar limitation
recited in independent claim 35. (App. Br. 19-20.)
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Zalewski discloses the
required split screen output from a game console, but rather discloses a
sequence of separate frames via time division multiplexing. (App. Br. 11;
Zalewski i-fi-1 7 5-7 6.) The Examiner finds that this disclosure in Zalewski
satisfies the split screen limitation, defining "split screen" as "a first video
feed (player 1 's perspective), a second video feed (player 2' s perspective), or
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 30, 2015); the Reply Brief
(filed June 20, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 1, 2014); the
Advisory Action (mailed June 12, 2014); and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Apr. 20, 2015) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2015-006474
Application 12/983,223
a combination of the two and so on as more players participate in whatever
game they are playing." (Ans. 8.) Appellant argues:
Split screen output as recited in the claims should be given this
ordinary meaning that is well established in the art and
supported by the present specification. Namely, that one
viewer's content is contained in one portion of the frame being
output while another viewer's content is contained in another
portion of the same frame being output.
(App. Br. 11.)
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner's definition is unreasonably
broad and has no basis in the record, whereas the Appellant's definition
conforms to standard usage as well as to the usage of that term in both the
Application and the cited art. (See Spec. i-f 4; Zalewski i-f 32.) Zalewski does
not disclose split screen output from a game console under the correct
definition of split screen.
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Zalewski of the use of
an HDivII port, as support for the finding that Zalewski discloses split screen
output, because the HDMI standard includes provisions of outputting in 3D
format. (Ans. 13-15.) However, as Appellant points out, there is no
suggestion in Zalewski that the HDMI port is used for that purpose, nor does
the possibility of 3D output relate to the issue of split screen output. (App.
Br. 14--15.)
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 24.
Second Issue
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Zalewski discloses
outputting a frame packed output from the game console, as required by
4
Appeal2015-006474
Application 12/983,223
claims 32 and 35.4 (App. Br. 19-20.) The Examiner again relies on the
disclosure in Zalewski of the use of an HDMI port, as support for the finding
that Zalewski discloses frame packed output, because the HDMI standard
includes provisions for such output. (Final Act. 16-17.) However, as
Appellant correctly argues, there is no mention of frame packed video in
Zalewski, and no suggestion in Zalewski that in fact the HDMI output is
used for frame packed output. (App. Br. 19-20.) Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 32 and 35.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24, 32, and 35. We also do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25-31, 33, and 34,
which claims depend from claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24, 32, or 35.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-37.
REVERSED
4 The specification explains that a frame packed split screen signal has
double the vertical resolution or double the horizontal resolution such that
each region is already in the full screen resolution of the display. (Spec.
ii 17.)
5