Ex Parte ODAGIRI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

14823130 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/823,130 08/11/2015
2292 7590 04/02/2019
BIRCH STEW ART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042-1248
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kensuke ODAGIRI
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.
2257-0524PUS1 4247
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENSUKE ODAGIRI, YOSHINORI ASAMURA, and
YASUNORIWADA
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823,130 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-6, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823, 13 0
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a multiscreen display
apparatus, and specifically, a plurality of video displays arranged in a matrix
and operating in conjunction with one another to produce a single,
continuous image. Spec. 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is
illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A multiscreen display apparatus, comprising a plurality
of video display apparatuses arranged in a matrix and daisy-
chain connected through a communication cable such that
screens of said plurality of video display apparatuses form a
multiscreen having a rectangular shape, wherein
for said plurality of video display apparatuses, a
transmission sequence in which information is transmitted
between said plurality of video display apparatuses through said
daisy chain connection is defined, and
a reference video display apparatus that comes first in
said transmission sequence from among said plurality of video
display apparatuses includes
processing circuitry
to calculate coordinates of said plurality of video display
apparatuses on said multiscreen on the basis of said
transmission sequence and arrangement information for
specifying an arrangement configuration of said plurality of
video display apparatuses,
to receive, from an external control apparatus, rule
information specifying a horizontal setting rule or a vertical
setting rule,
if said rule information specifies said horizontal setting
rule, to calculate a plurality of identification numbers for
identifying said plurality of video display apparatuses in
2
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823, 13 0
such a manner that a sequence of the plurality of identification
numbers is ( n 1) a sequence according to a raster scanning in
which a sequence of scanning starting from a reference position
being a position of said reference video display apparatus in
said multiscreen is changed in a direction horizontal to said
multi screen,
if said rule information specifies said vertical setting rule,
to calculate said plurality of identification numbers in such a
manner that the sequence of the plurality of identification
numbers is (n2) a sequence according to a raster scanning in
which the sequence of scanning starting from the reference
position is changed in a direction vertical to said multiscreen,
and
to perform a processing for setting said identification
number of each of said plurality of video display apparatuses
with the calculated coordinates to said video display apparatus
concerned.
Br. 1-2 (Claims App'x) (emphases added).
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kakeko (WO 2014/064824 Al; Oct. 26, 2012)2 and
Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 2011/0267328 Al; Nov. 3, 2011)
("Venkatasubramanian"). Final Act. 2-7.
2 The Examiner asserts that Kakeko '824 "corresponds to
PCT/JP2012/077677" which in tum was published as US 2015/0287390 Al.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner's paragraph citations to Kakeko refer to the
'390 publication. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's assertions or the
status of any of the Kakeko documents as prior art. Accordingly, we, like
the Examiner, cite to the '390 publication as "Kakeko."
3
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823, 13 0
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests using an "external control apparatus" to specify (to a reference
video display apparatus) a horizontal setting rule or vertical setting rule, as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3--4 ( emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants
argue Kakeko discloses "only one sequence of identification numbers set in
the display system" and it cannot be changed using an "external control
device." Id. at 4. Similarly, Appellants argue, Venkatasubramanian only
teaches the configuration or orientation of display devices ( e.g., vertical
orientation, horizontal orientation, or hub and spoke configuration), not an
"external control device" as claimed. Id. We, however, agree with the
Examiner's findings, and Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error.
As the Examiner finds, V enkatasubramanian discloses a "signal box
(sbox)" that is "coupled to" a tiled display screen via "shielded category-6
( cat-6) cables." The sbox, cables, and display screen are illustrated in block
diagram form in Venkatasubramanian Figure 2, reproduced below.
4
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823, 13 0
FIG. 2
According to the disclosure in Venkatasubramanian, sbox 202
"process[es] video data received from [a] media player 204 in response to
commands received from [a] computing device 206," and then "transmits
data signals to the tiled display screen 208 via the sbox interconnects 210."
Venkatasubramanian ,r,r 19, 21 (emphasis added). The "tiled display screen
208 is configured to display a digital image received from the sbox 202." Id.
at ,r 22.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that sbox 202, media player 204,
and computing device 206 constitute an "external control apparatus," in that
they are "external" to the display matrix ( connected to it via cat-6 cable) and
provide video data signals to it. Ans. 5-7. Appellants argue that "external"
requires control over a "network," and cite to Appellants' own
Specification's description of control over a local area network (LAN).
Reply Br. 2; Spec. 7. Appellants' description of a LAN, however, is only a
5
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823, 13 0
"preferred embodiment," not an exclusive method of control or connection.
Spec. 6. We discern nothing in the claims or Specification requiring that
"external" means over a network. Rather, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Venkatasubramanian's control connected to a tiled display via
physical cables, rather than within the tiled display itself, teaches a control
apparatus that is "external" relative to the display. Ans. 5-7.
We also discern no error in the Examiner's further findings that the
combination of Venkatasubramanian and Kakeko teaches or suggests the
remainder of the limitation "receive, from an external control apparatus, rule
information specifying a horizontal setting rule or vertical setting rule."
Ans. 9; see, e.g., Venkatasubramanian ,r,r 21, 24--25. In the Reply Brief,
Appellants argue V enkatasubramanian does not teach or suggest that the
data signals include any "rule information." Reply 2. The Examiner,
however, does not rely on Venkatasubramanian alone. As the Examiner
finds, Kakeko teaches a horizontal setting rule in its depiction of daisy chain
control of displays. Kakeko Figs. 10-11, ,r 118; Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5
( finding V enkatasubramanian teaches, in general, any type of sequencing to
neighboring display devices in a chain, i.e., rule information). Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the Examiner's
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.").
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding the
remaining limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants do not argue the remaining
6
Appeal2018-004727
Application 14/823, 13 0
dependent claims separately with particularity. We, therefore, also sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 2-6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7