Ex Parte Repellin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

13203557 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/203,557 09/20/2011 Olivier Repellin 022044-0398283 8651
909 7590 02/15/2018
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
YU, HENRY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER REPELLIN
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—9. Br. 4.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sagemcom Broadband
SAS. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed January 30, 2015; the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed July 31,
2015; the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed February 1, 2016; and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 1, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention diagnoses or updates the software of an HDMI-
equipped3 device. Spec. 1. Typically, a digital-television decoderuses a
serial port, USB port, Ethernet port, or jack-socket connector to update its
software. Id. at 1—2. But fewer new decoders have these ports. Id. at 2.
The invention uses an HDMI connector to exchange information with a
third-party device for software updates. Id. at 4. Accordingly, the invention
can perform the update without the need for communication ports that are
less prevalent in newer devices. See id. at 2, 4.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A method of diagnosing and/or updating embedded software,
associated with a processor of a first electronic device equipped
with an HDMI type connector, the method comprising:
linking, using a suitable cable, a third-party electronic
device, configured to perform a diagnosing or updating
operation, or both, of the embedded software, with a first pin and
a second pin of the HDMI connector;
carrying out an operation of switching the first electronic
device, by toggling said first electronic device from a first mode
corresponding to a usual operating mode of the first electronic
device, to a second mode corresponding to a transmission mode
of the first electronic device, in which the HDMI connector is
configured, via the first pin and the second pin, to exchange
information to and from the processor, said switching operation
comprising different operations comprising
toggling a first connection, linking in the usual operating
mode a first processor port of the processor, dedicated to the
receipt of data, to a serial port of the first electronic device or to
an unused port of the first electronic device, such that said first
connection links, in the transmission mode, said first port of the
processor to said first pin of the HDMI connector;
3 HDMI stands for High Definition Multimedia Interface. Spec. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
toggling a second connection, linking in the usual
operating mode a second processor port of the processor,
dedicated to the transmission of data, to a serial port of the first
electronic device or to an unused port of the first electronic
device, such that said second connection links, in the
transmission mode, said second port of the processor to said
second pin of the HDMI connector, and
carrying out, via the suitable cable, exchanges of
information between the first electronic device and the third-
party electronic device, so as to carry out the operation of
diagnosing and/or updating of the embedded software.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Stone US 2005/0120384 A1 June 2,2005
Nakahama US 8,190,786 B2 May 29,2012
Claims 1—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stone and Nakahama. Final Act. 5—12.
THE REJECTION OVER STONE AND NAKAHAMA
The Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Stone teaches every limitation recited in
independent claim 1 except for switching the first electronic device by
toggling connections from a usual operating mode to a transmission mode,
as recited. Final Act. 5—8. In concluding that claim 1 would have been
obvious, the Examiner cites Nakahama as teaching this feature. Id. at 6—8.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Nakahama’s two hot-plug states
correspond to the recited first and second modes. Id. at 6.
3
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that Nakahama does not teach the recited toggling.
Br. 9-10. According to Appellant, Nakahama changes the hot-plug state
from high to low, but this change in state does not involve the recited
toggling. Id. at 10. Appellant contends that Nakahama’s DDC4 and CEC5
lines always remain connected to the same HDMI port, and the receiver
(sink) always remains connected to the transmitter. Id. at 9—10.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
by finding that Stone and Nakahama would have taught or suggested
carrying out an operation of switching the first electronic device by the
recited toggling?
Appellant’s arguments raise others issues, but we find this issue
dispositive.
Analysis
The switching limitation comprises, in part, “toggling a first
connection . . . such that said first connection links, in the transmission
mode, said first port of the processor to said first pin of the HDMI
connector.” The claim further recites toggling a second connection in a
similar way by connecting the processor’s second port to a second pin.
According to the Specification, toggling involves repositioning
switches. Spec. 12. For example, switching device 304 positions the
switches based on the mode. Id. at 11. Figure 3, reproduced below, shows
switching device 304.
4 DDC stands for Display Data Channel. Nakahama 2:1—2.
5 CEC stands for Consumer Electronics Control. Nakahama 4:7.
4
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
Figure 3, above, shows the transition from a first position (represented
by dashed lines) for the usual mode to a second position (represented by
solid lines) for the transmission mode. Id. For instance, in transmission
mode, switching device 304 disconnects ports 313 and 314 from CEC pin
331 and reserved pin 332, respectively. Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that the disclosed system works like a
“hardware switch, where certain pins and leads are disconnected while
another set of pins and leads are connected in a first mode, while in another
mode those pins and leads that were disconnected in the first mode are now
connected.” Adv. Act. 2. But, in the Examiner’s view, the claims are much
broader. See id. According to the Examiner, “the claims as currently
worded merely disclose that certain connections are ‘toggled,’ which does
not differentiate the claimed system from” the multi-pin connectors in the
cited prior art. Id. For example, under the Examiner’s interpretation, claim
1 encompasses a system that selects certain pins and leads to send a
particular signal—i.e., certain pins are used for one set of signals and other
pins for another set of signals. Id. We disagree. Accord Br. 9-10.
5
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
Here, the Specification consistently and repeatedly uses the terms
“toggling” and “switching” to refer to repositioning switches. See Spec. 11—
12, discussed supra', see also Spec 4—5. Claim 1 reflects this feature by
reciting various configurations of ports, connections, and pins. For example,
claim 1 expressly recites how the connection links the ports to the pins.
Moreover, the recited switching operation requires configuring the HDMI
connectors via the first pin and the second pin. When read in the context of
the entire recited switching operation and in view of the Specification, we
disagree with the Examiner that “toggling” could be read to cover selecting a
pin for communicating a signal, in this case. See, e.g., Final Act. 5—8;
Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 18—19.
Given this understanding of claim 1, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not shown how Nakahama teaches the recited toggling. Br. 9—
10.
In particular, Nakahama uses an HDMI standard. Nakahama 5:65—67.
HDMI includes a bidirectional bus referred to as DDC, TMDS6 for
transmitting digital-video data, and a CEC for two-way communication
between the transmitter (source) and receiver (sink). Id. at 6:4—7, 33-35, 42—
45. This configuration is shown in Figure 1, which is reproduced below.
6 TDMS stands for Transition Minimized Differential Signaling. Nakahama
1:36-37.
6
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
F I G , 1
no no
Nakahama’s Figure 1 shows an HDMI standard. Id. at 5:36—38.
The Examiner finds that the TDMS channels correspond to the recited
transmission components, and DDC 131 and CEC line 132 correspond to the
recited receiving components. Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, has
not shown a switching operation in Nakahama that involves the recited
toggling. See, e.g., id. at 3, 5—8. Rather, the Examiner relies on Nakahama’s
hot-plug state transition, which only involves setting the source to a high or
low state. Nakahama 9:6—20, cited in Br. 10.
When the hot plug’s state is “high,” the selection source can read the
EDID-ROM’s data. Nakahama 9:33—35. When the hot plug’s state is
“low,” the non-selection source cannot read the EDID-ROM’s data.
Id. at 9:36-41. To be sure, the hot plug’s state may change the mode.
Adv. Act. 2, Ans. 18—19. But unlike claimed operation, the cited portions of
Nakahama do not teach or suggest a switching that toggles the TDMS
7
Appeal 2017-003898
Application 13/203,557
channels, DDC, and CEC to a first or second port. See Nakahama 3:6—33,
54—56; 6:25—55; 9:27—41; Figs. 1, 5. Instead, in the relied-upon
embodiments, Nakahama’s lines remain connected to the same port. See id.',
accord Br. 8—9.
The Examiner did not rely on Stone for this limitation. Final Act. 5—
6. Therefore, Stone cannot cure Nakahama’s deficiency in this regard.
On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2—9, which depend from claim 1, for similar
reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9.
REVERSED
8