Ex Parte Milne et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2009

09862391 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES R. MILNE
and MICHAEL D. MCDERMOTT
____________

Appeal 2008-004967
Application 09/862,391
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 28, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ROBERT E. NAPPI
and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the obviousness rejections.
Appellants have invented a digital television architecture in which a
global interface is operative to provide a technology-independent
Appeal 2008-004967
Application 09/862,391

2
communication path between a processing module and a presentation
module (Figs. 1 and 4; Spec. 2, 4, 12, 13; Abstract).
Claim 9 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
9. A modular television architecture, comprising:
a processing module including circuitry operative to convert an input
signal from a first type into at least a second type, the conversion being
performed in the digital domain;
a presentation module operative to convert audio and visual
information contained within the at least second signal into a final signal for
presentation on a display device, the audio and visual conversation being
performed in a first domain, the presentation module being separate from
and operating independently of the processing module; and
a global interface operative to provide a technology-independent
communication path between the processing module and the presentation
module.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Phillips US 6,072,994 Jun. 6, 2000
Margulis US 6,340,994 B1 Jan. 22, 2002
(filed Aug. 12, 1998)
Trovato US 6,469,742 B1 Oct. 22, 2002
(filed Apr. 12, 1999)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 8, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Margulis, Trovato, and Phillips.

Appeal 2008-004967
Application 09/862,391

3
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Margulis and Trovato.
With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue that Margulis does not teach
or suggest a presentation module that forms a final signal (Br. 5 to 7), there
is no reason to modify Margulis to include a global interface (Br. 7 to 10),
and the proposed modification to Margulis would render Margulis
inoperative for its intended purpose (Br. 10 and 11).

ISSUES
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Margulis describes a presentation module that forms a final signal?
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Margulis describes a global interface?
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the proposed modification to Margulis would not render Margulis
inoperative for its intended purpose?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. As seen in Figures 1 and 4 of Appellants’ drawing, the global
interface 16 is technology-independent interface between the processing
module 12 and the presentation module 14.
2. Margulis describes a display input processor (DIP) 210 that
converts an analog input signal into a digital signal in A/D converter 3002
(Figs. 2 and 3; col. 6, ll. 45 to 55; col. 7, ll. 18 to 23). A display output
processor (DOP) 230 operating independently of the DIP 210 operates in the
Appeal 2008-004967
Application 09/862,391

4
digital domain to convert audio and visual information contained within the
output from the DIP into a final signal for presentation on a display device
260 (col. 6, ll. 3 to 9). A databus 250 connects the DIP 210 and the DOP
230 (col. 6, ll. 3 to 6). An image modulator 245 of a direct view system or a
projection system is used to provide the final display image signals to the
display device 260 (col. 6, ll. 20 to 27; col. 23, ll. 17 to 38). The digital
display system operates according to IEEE standard 1394 (col. 7, ll. 35 to
38).
3. Trovato describes an upgradeable television with manually
replaceable modules (col. 4, ll. 6 to 24).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
For all of the reasons expressed by the Examiner (Ans. 3 to 9), and for
the additional reasons set forth infra, we agree with the Examiner that the
claimed invention is either taught by or would have been suggested by the
applied references.
Appeal 2008-004967
Application 09/862,391

5
Turning first to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that the
output display images from the DOP 230 in Margulis are final display image
signals that are used by image modulator 245 to place the image signals in a
form suitable for the chosen type of display (FF 2).
With respect to Appellants’ arguments that Margulis does not describe
a global interface, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 5, 6, and
8) that the IEEE 13941 standard for the data bus 250 provides a plug-n-play
technology-independent data communications interface between the DIP 210
and the DOP 230.
Appellants’ arguments that the proposed modification to Margulis
would render Margulis inoperative for its intended purpose are not
convincing of the nonobviousness of the claimed invention set forth in claim
9 because Appellants’ arguments are not sufficiently supported by evidence
of record.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of independent claim 9 is
sustained.
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 13 are sustained
because Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for these
claims apart from the arguments presented for claim 9.
Appellants’ arguments throughout the brief do not convince us of any
error in the Examiner’s positions in the rejections. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445. The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejections possesses a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.

1 The IEEE standard 1394 is also known as FireWire.
Appeal 2008-004967
Application 09/862,391

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that Margulis describes a presentation module that forms a final signal.
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that Margulis describes a global interface.
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that the proposed modification to Margulis would not render Margulis
inoperative for its intended purpose.

ORDER
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 13 are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406