Ex Parte Landschaft et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

11143911 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ASSAF LANDSCHAFT, GAL WOHLSTADTER, and GIL
WOHLSTADTER
____________________

Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JAMES R.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6,
8-10, 12-15, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2007). Claims 7, 11, 16,
and 17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2007).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a wireless
communications device with a visual ring signal and a method for visually
indicating an incoming call on the communication device (Spec. 1,
¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:

1. A method of generating a visual ring signal for a
communications device, comprising:

detecting a ring signal with a communications device,
wherein the communications device includes a visual display
screen integrated therein and configured to display a number or
name of an incoming call;

generating a digital representation of an audio sequence
of said ring signal; and

displaying, on the visual display screen, a sequence of
visual effects based on said digital representation.

Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zimmerman US 6,411,289 Bl Jun. 25, 2002
Lee US 6,658,270 B1 Dec. 02, 2003
Engstrom US 2004/0137954 Al Jul. 15, 2004
(“Engstrom 1”)
Engstrom US 7,072,621 Bl Jul. 04, 2006
(“Engstrom 2”) (filed Jul. 17, 2001)
Engstrom US 7,162,282 B2 Jan. 09, 2007
(“Engstrom 3”) (filed Dec. 17, 2003)
Henderson US 7,280,647 B2 Oct. 09, 2007
(filed Aug. 07, 2003)

Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-14, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the teachings of Engstrom 1, Engstrom 1, Engstrom 3, Lee and
Henderson.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
teachings of Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2, Engstrom 3, Lee, Henderson and
Zimmerman.

II. ISSUES
Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings of
Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2, Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson would have taught
or suggested “generating a digital representation of an audio sequence of
said ring signal” and “displaying, on the visual display screen, a sequence of
visual effects based on said digital representation” (claim 1)?

Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Engstrom 1
1. Engstrom discloses a wireless mobile phone that is provided
with the capability to visually convey audio to users (Abstract), such
as visualization of incoming call notifications (p. 2, ¶ [0023]).
2. In an embodiment, a geometric primitive, a pattern, a thing, an
object, a person or an animal is animated in accordance with one or
more attributes of the audio (p. 4, ¶ [0048]).
Lee
3. Lee relates to displaying incoming call alerts to remind the user
to answer an incoming phone call without interrupting other people’s
undertaking operation, wherein it is preferred that the incoming call
signal be displayed in a pictorial or symbolic form and to let the user
enjoy the vivid animated full picture display (col. 1, ll. 24-31).
Henderson
4. Henderson discloses instantaneous transmission of caller
identification information before communications have been
established (Abstract), wherein a mobile phone 500 comprises a
display screen 507 that may display text, images and video associated
with the caller (col. 8, ll. 47-59; Fig. 5).

IV. ANALYSIS
As for independent claims 1, 13, and 21, Appellants merely contend
that “Henderson generates a picture or video, among others, based upon the
Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

5
incoming caller’s identification” wherein “the instant application displays a
sequence of visual effects based upon a digital representation of an audio
sequence” (App. Br. 7). That is, though Appellants admit that Henderson
discloses “picture or video on the same display screen used to display an
incoming caller’s number or name,” according to Appellants, “the picture or
video is not based upon a digital representation of an audio sequence” (App.
Br. 8).
However, the Examiner finds that “Engstrom 1 teaches displaying a
sequence of visual effects based on a digital representation of an audio
sequence” (Ans. 34). The Examiner explains that Appellants’ argument that
Henderson must “teach all the claim limitations set forth in the claims” is
“fatally flawed since the claims 1, 13, and 21 are rejected based on 103”
(Ans. 36). Further, the Examiner points out that “Henderson’s ring tone
meets the claim limitation of ‘a digital representation of an audio sequence’”
(Ans. 37). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings.
By arguing what Henderson lacks (App. Br. 7-8), Appellants appear
to be arguing that individually Henderson does not anticipate the claimed
invention. However, the Examiner has rejected the claims based on the
combination of Engstrom 1, Engstrom 1, Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson,
and nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking the references
individually. The test for obviousness is not what each reference shows but
what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
To determine whether the combination of Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2,
Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson would have suggested “generating a digital
representation of an audio sequence of said ring signal” and “displaying, on
Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

6
the visual display screen, a sequence of visual effects based on said digital
representation” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 13 and
21), we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not define what a “digital representation” is to mean,
comprise or represent other than that the representation is “of an audio
sequence of said ring signal.” We interpret an audio sequence of a ring
signal to be the ringing sound of an incoming signal, i.e., a ringtone.
Accordingly, we give “digital representation” its broadest but reasonable
definition as a digital signal associated with a ringtone.
Engstrom 1 discloses a wireless mobile phone that visually conveys
audio to users, such as visualization of incoming call notifications (FF 1),
wherein a geometric primitive, a pattern, a thing, an object, a person or an
animal is animated in accordance with one or more attributes of the audio
(FF 2). We find Engstrom 1’s incoming audio call notifications to comprise
digital signals associated with a ringtone. Further, we find Engstrom 1’s
animated geometric primitives, patterns, etc. to comprise a sequence of
visual effects displayed based on the incoming call notifications. Thus, we
find Engstrom 1 to, at the least, suggest “generating a digital representation
of an audio sequence of said ring signal” and “displaying, on the visual
display screen, a sequence of visual effects based on said digital
representation” as recited in claim 1.
Further, Lee relates to displaying incoming call alerts in a vivid
animated full picture display (FF 3), and Henderson discloses transmitting
Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

7
caller identification information in a form of video on a display screen (FF
4). That is, both Lee and Henderson disclose displaying an animated
image/video based on the incoming call signal, and thus, based on the digital
signal associated with a ringtone. Thus, we find Lee and Henderson to also
at the least suggest “displaying, on the visual display screen, a sequence of
visual effects based on said digital representation” as recited in claim 1. We
note that contrary to Appellants’ argument that “the picture or video [of
Henderson] is not based upon a digital representation of an audio sequence”
(App. Br. 8), Henderson’s video is based on the incoming call signal (FF 4),
and thus, the digital signal associated with a ringtone.
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combined
teachings of Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2, Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson
would at least have suggested “generating a digital representation of an
audio sequence of said ring signal” and “displaying, on the visual display
screen, a sequence of visual effects based on said digital representation” as
recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 13 and 21.
Although Appellants add in the Reply Brief that “it would not be
obvious to take the visual effects displayed by the LEDs of Engstrom 1 and
now display them on the new screen taken from Henderson” (Reply Br. 3),
the Examiner appears to view the references from the different perspective
than that of the Examiner. That is, the question is not whether the ordinarily
skilled artisan would have display the LEDs of Engstrom 1 on the display of
Henderson, but whether the artisan would have used Engstrom’s digital
representation of audio sequence of a ring signal as the digital representation
of an audio sequence from which a visual effects are displayed, such as that
of Henderson. We conclude that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

8
found it obvious to combine Engstrom 1’s, Lee’s and Henderson’s teachings
of displaying animated visual effects based on incoming call signals.
Appellants have provided no evidence that incorporating the three
teachings of displaying animated visual effects based audio representation of
an incoming call was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007), nor have Appellants presented evidence that
this incorporation yielded more than expected results. Rather, we find that
Appellants’ invention is simply an arrangement of the known teachings of
visually displaying audio. “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and
yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the
combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1, 13, and 21 over Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2, Engstrom 3, Lee and
Henderson.
As for claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, 14, 18-20, and 22, Appellants merely list
the claim language and then assert that the combined teachings do not
disclose these features (App. Br. 8-15). However, statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See
also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693,
2009 WL 2477843, at *3-4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). As
discussed above with respect to claims 1, 13 and 21, we find no error with
Appeal 2010-001337
Application 11/143,911

9
the rejection over Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2, Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson.
Accordingly, claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, 14, 18-20, and 22, depending respectively
from claims 1, 13 and 21, fall with claims 1, 13 and 21.
Similarly, as to claims 6 and 15, Appellants merely repeat the claim
language and assert that the cited combinations do not disclose the recited
features. As discussed above, the repetition of the claim language will not
be considered an argument, and we find no error with the rejection over
Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2, Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson. Accordingly, we
also affirm the rejection of claims 6 and 15 over Engstrom 1, Engstrom 2,
Engstrom 3, Lee and Henderson, in further view of Zimmerman.

CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 18-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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).

AFFIRMED

peb