Ex Parte Ludwig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

13383725 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/383,725 01112/2012 Alf Ludwig
24737 7590 07/25/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2009P00821 WOUS 3562
EXAMINER
ELBINGER, STEVEN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALF LUDWIG and ROLAND CLAUS BECK1
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 3-13 and 15-23. Claims 5, 12, and 13 are
independent and claims 1, 2, and 14 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N V. See Appeal Brief 1.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
Jan. 1, 2012 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Feb. 13,
2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed July 14, 2014; (4) the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed Sept. 12, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) mailed Nov. 12, 2014.
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
BACKGROl.J1'-JD
According to Appellants, the application relates to a computer system
and method for operating a plurality of computing devices using one of the
computing devices. Spec. 2. Claim 5 is representative of the independent
claims and is reproduced below:
5. A computing system for operating a plurality of
computing devices, the computing system comprising one of
the computing devices and an image composing unit for
generating a common video signal for a display device;
wherein said one computing device is adapted for:
partitioning a display area of the display device
into a plurality of display area sections, wherein at least
one of the display area sections is related to at least one
other computing device;
receiving an input signal from at least one input
device,
wherein the input signal is relatable to a position
within the display area;
and
providing the at least one other computing device
with the input signal depending on the position being in
one of the display area sections related to said other
computing device;
wherein the image composing unit is an image
compositing unit being adapted for combining image
components for displaying on the display device, the
image components are related to:
the one computing device and at least one other
computing device; or
a plurality of other computing devices;
2
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
wherein the image compositing unit is adapted for:
receiving a set of source signals, wherein each
source signal is related to a corresponding computing
device;
determining a key information from a first source
signal of the one computing device; and
switching between the source signals of the
different image sources based on the determined key
information to create the common video signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Dempski et al.
("Dempski")
Yui
Iwamoto
Timokhin et al.
("Timokhin")
Nakayama
US 2004/0155902 Al
US 6,859,236 B2
US 2008/0211966 Al
US 2009/0122011 Al
US 2009/0310023 Al
REJECTIONS3
Aug. 12, 2004
Feb.22,2005
Sept. 4, 2008
May 14, 2009
Dec. 17, 2009
Claims 3, 5-10, 12, 16, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto. Final
Act. 4.
3 The rejections of claims 3, 6, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, have been withdrawn. Ans. 2-3.
3
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
Claims 4, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and in view of Yui. Final
Act. 15.
Claims 13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and in view of
Nakayama. Final Act. 18.
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and in view ofDempski.
Final Act. 25.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and Nakayama and further
in view of Dempski. Final Act. 28.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible
issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not
before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
1. Was the Examiner's reasoning for combining Timokhin and
Iwamoto to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 5 erroneous?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Timokhin
and Iwamoto teaches or suggests all of the recited features of dependent
claims 3, 16, 17, and 22?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Timokhin,
Iwamoto, and Yui teaches or suggests all of the recited features of
dependent claims 4, 11, and 15?
4
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Timokhin,
Iwamoto, and Nakayama teaches or suggests all of the recited features of
dependent claims 18 and 20?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Timokhin,
Iwamoto, and Dempski teaches or suggests all of the recited features of
dependent claims 19 and 21?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Timokhin,
Iwamoto, Nakayama and Dempski teaches or suggests all of the recited
features of dependent claim 23?
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 5-10, 12, and 13
After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings
and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not identified error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer.
See Final Act. 4--34; Ans. 3-23. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants assert claim 5 is not obvious over Timokhin and Iwamoto
because the proposed combination "contravenes MPEP 2143.01 (VI) by
changing the principal of operation of Timokhin, since the components of
Timokhin no longer perform their prescribed functions." Appeal Br. 16-17.
Specifically, Appellants contend the principal of operation of Timokhin is
changed because "the Examiner proposes to modify Timokhin with the
teachings of Iwamoto by replacing the video processor of Timokhin with the
image processor of Iwamoto and moving control over partitioning to the
control computer." Id.
5
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Appellants fail to
indicate where the Examiner's rejection proposes "replacing the video
processor of Timokhin with the image processor of Iwamoto." To the
contrary, the Examiner proposes adding Iwamoto's chroma key functionality
to Timokhin's video processor configuration rather than replacing the video
processor of Timokhin with the image processor of Iwamoto and moving
control over partitioning to the control computer. Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 7-8.
Moreover, Appellants provide insufficient evidence defining Timokhin's
"principal of operation" or specifically supporting the assertion that the
Examiner's proposed modification of Timokhin would change this
undefined principal of operation in Timokhin. Appeal Br. 5.
Accordingly, Appellants fail to establish that the Examiner's proposed
modification would have changed the principal of operation of Timokhin
rendering the modification non-obvious. See In re Gordon, 733 F .2d 900,
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Next, Appellants argue that the Examiner's motivation for the
combination is to allow instant switching between images and contend that
"this motivation does not explain why it would be obvious to change the
fundamental roles of the video processor and the control computer of
Timokhin." Appeal Br. 17. This argument is unpersuasive because, as
indicated above, Appellants fail to establish that the proposed modification
of Timokhin would "change the fundamental roles of the video processor
and the control computer of Timokhin," as asserted by Appellants. Id.
Appellants further contend that "the instant switching of Iwamoto
pertains to switching inputs on a display device" and "has no relevance to
the obviousness of modifications needed to combine Timokhin and
6
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
Iwamoto." Because we agree with the Examiner's finding that " [ o ]ne of the
primary functions of the Instant Application, Timokhin, and Iwamoto is to
switch video data to the correct window on a common screen," of a display
device, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. Ans. 8-9. Instead, we
find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings
sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 7,
Ans. 7-8; KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellants, therefore, fail to persuasively rebut the reason to combine
Timokhin and Iwamoto set forth by the Examiner and so we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5. See Final Act. 7; Ans.
7-9. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 12 and 13, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similarly unpersuasive reasons. App. Br. 17-20.
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 6-10. Id. Therefore, we likewise sustain the
rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
35 U.S. C. § 103: Claim 3
Appellants contend the references do not disclose "receiving requests
for displaying the image components of the computing devices," as recited
in claim 3, because, in Timokhin, "the whole of the source video is
displayed, not components." Appeal Br. 14.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that the requests received by Timokhin's source
computer to display windows (133, 135, 137) on the display system (131)
7
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
teach or suggest receiving a request for displaying components of the
computing devices. Ans. 4 (citing Fig. 1 of Timokhin).
Appellants further contend "none of the references disclose
partitioning the display area into sections" because Iwamoto "discloses
switching images on a display screen without a synchronization distortion
occurring" and "Timokhin discloses windows, not partitions." Appeal Br.
14.
We agree with the Examiner that, under a broadest reasonable
interpretation in view of the Specification, claim 3 does "not distinguish
between a partition and a window." Ans. 4. Here, the Examiner correctly
finds that Figure 1 of the Specification illustrates partitioning common
image 58 of display device 20 into windows at image components 46, 48,
and 50. Ans. 4 (citing Spec. Fig. 1 and pg. 7, 11. 15-21 ). We further agree
with the Examiner's finding that Timokhin's source computer windows
displayed on the display system teach or suggest partitioning the display into
sections using windows, as set forth in claim 3. Ans. 5 (citing Fig. 1 of
Timokhin). Moreover, Appellants' arguments regarding Iwamoto are
unpersuasive because the Examiner instead relies upon Timokhin to suggest
partitioning the display area.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that "Timokhin
fails to disclose that the display would be partitioned according to the
components." Reply Br. 1. That argument is untimely and will not be
considered in the absence of any good faith showing why it could not have
been timely presented in Appellants' Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)
(2013).
8
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin and Iwamoto.
35 U.S. C. § 103: Claim 4
Appellants contend "the Examiner appears to be arguing that it would
be obvious to embed one window within another window [in Timokhin]
using the approach of Yui to compose a main picture and a sub-picture at a
high precision by efficiently using a memory" and the embedding of one
window in another would change the principle of operation of Timokhin,
thereby rending claim 4 non-obvious over the cited combination. Appeal Br.
15.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that in
Timokhin, "windows are displayed on the background and are not embedded
within each other." Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds that "[s]ince
windows are not required to be embedded, nothing prevents windows from
moving or being resized." Id.
In light of the Examiner's findings, we agree that the Appellants have
failed to establish that combining Yui with Timokhin would change the
principle of operation of Timokhin thereby rendering the combination non-
obvious.
Appellants further contend that by modifying Timokhin with Yui "a
portion of the main window is indeed hidden by the sub-window, which
contravenes the claim language." Appeal Br. 16.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that combining Yui's teaching of prioritizing windows
(the highest priority window displayed on top of all other windows) with
9
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
Timokhin and Iwamoto to teach or suggest setting the priority of one of the
windows higher than the other windows fails to contravene the language of
claim 4 (i.e., "wherein any image component related to another computing
device cannot hide the image component of the one computing device, as
recited in claim 4.") Ans. 6-7. That is, the Examiner relies on Yui's
suggestion of a prioritization technique alone without incorporating or
requiring a window arrangement antithetical to the requirements of claim 4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue, in response to the Answer, "even
if Yui's Chroma key system is used to prioritize the display of windows,
which it is submitted that it is not obvious to do, nothing in Yui suggests that
the one computing device would be prioritized over any other devices."
Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they attack the
individual teachings of the references and do not address what the
combination of references teaches, as explained by the Examiner. "Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck &Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that "Yui' s concept of prioritizing windows
(the highest priority window displayed on top of all other windows) can be
combined with Timokhin and Iwamoto to disclose setting the priority of one
of the windows higher than the other windows." Ans. 6. Appellants,
therefore, unpersuasively attempt to distinguish the teachings of Yui, where
the rejection is based upon the teachings of the cited combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto and Yui.
10
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 11
Appellants contend "Iwamoto does not discuss the synchronization of
source signals by synchronizing pixel clocks of the computing devices" as
disclosed in claim 11." Appeal Br. 1 7.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
upon Yui rather than Iwamoto to teach the disputed features. Ans. 9.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that Yui does not
teach or suggest all of the disputed features of claim 11. Reply Br. 3. That
argument is untimely and will not be considered in the absence of any good
faith showing why it could not have been timely presented in Appellants'
Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, and Yui.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 15
Appellants contend "claim 15 is patentably distinguished and non-
obvious from Timokhin and Iwamoto." Appeal Br. 20.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
upon Yui, rather than Timokhin or Iwamoto, to teach the disputed features.
Ans. 15.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that "Yui fails to
disclose any layer priority being determined in a one computing device."
Reply Br. 5. That argument is untimely and will not be considered in the
absence of any good faith showing why it could not have been timely
presented in Appellants' Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013).
11
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, and Yui.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 16
Appellants contend "claim 16 is patentably distinguished from the
references of record." Appeal Br. 20. Specifically, Appellants argue
"Timokhin does not disclose removing active focus or sending a signal to
the corresponding computing device with the removed active focus." Id.
Such a conclusory statement, however, amounting to little more than a
paraphrasing of the claim language and a general denial, is unpersuasive to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness found by the Examiner. Cf 3 7
C.F .R. § 41.37 ( c )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.").
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin and Iwamoto. Final Act. 13-14;
Ans. 15-16.
12
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 17
Appellants contend "claim 17 is patentably distinguished and non-
obvious from the references of records" because "Iwamoto does not
disclose, suggest, or imply mouse pointer locations or synchronization."
Appeal Br. 21.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
upon Timokhin, rather than Iwamoto, to teach the disputed features.
Ans. 17.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that Timokhin
"does not disclose synchronizing the mouse pointer locations corresponding
to the computing devices, which avoids jumping of the pointer when
crossing display area section boundaries on the display." Reply Br. 6. That
argument is untimely and will not be considered in the absence of any good
faith showing why it could not have been timely presented in Appellants'
Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin and Iwamoto. Final Act. 13-
14; Ans. 16-17.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 18
Appellants contend "claim 18 is patentably distinguished and non-
obvious from the references of record." Appeal Br. 22. Specifically,
Appellants argue that none of the references disclose "partitioning a display
into sections" or "a weighted average of two source signals." Id. at 21.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 23; Ans.
13
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
17-19. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, and
Nakayama.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 19
Appellants contend claim 19 is patentably and non-obviously
distinguished from the references of record because "Dempski merely
discloses rotating an object." Appeal Br. 8.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 25-27;
Ans. 19-20. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, and
Dempski.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 20
Appellants contend "claim 20 distinguishes patentably and non-
obviously from the references of record." Appeal Br. 9. Specifically,
Appellants argue that "Nakayama discloses a weighted average of a
foreground color and a background color" [and] [ t ]his generic disclosure
does not teach that key information is determined from the first source
signal." Id. at 8-9.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 23-24;
Ans. 20-21. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
14
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, and
Nakayama.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 21
Appellants contend "claim 21 distinguishes patentably and non-
obviously over the references of record" because "Dempski merely discloses
rotating an object." Appeal Br. 9.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 25-27;
Ans. 21-22. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, and
Dempski.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 22
Appellants contend "claim 22 is patentably distinguished from the
references of record" because "Timokhin fails to disclose the features of
claim 22" because Timokhin fails to disclose shifting any focus. Appeal Br.
10.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 14--15;
Ans. 22-23. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin and Iwamoto.
15
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 23
Appellants contend "claim 23 distinguishes patentably and non-
obviously over the references of record" because "Dempski merely discloses
rotating an object." Appeal Br. 10-11.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 28-30;
Ans. 23-24. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Timokhin, Iwamoto, Nakayama,
and Dempski.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5-10, 12, 16, 17, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and Yui
is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 13, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and
Nakayama is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto and
Dempski is affirmed.
16
Appeal2015-001784
Application 13/383,725
The Examiner's rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Timokhin in view of Iwamoto, Nakayama, and
Dempski 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17