Ex Parte Shintani et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

10896690 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte PETER SHINTANI and BAN KAWAMURA
________________

Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants invoke our review1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection2 of claims 1, 3-5, 7-14 and 16-18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to selecting a display format for a video
display device. Typically, a video display “device” is capable of displaying
various “supported” formats (e.g. resolution, aspect ratio, timing).3
Supported formats are described in an extended display information data
(EDID) file that is stored in an EEPROM.4 In a “plug and play”
environment, a video source “reads” the EEPROM to determine what video
formats are supported, selects a format from among those that are supported
and sends a video stream in the selected format.5 The selected format may
or may not be the user’s first choice among the supported video formats.6
According to the invention, rather than allowing the video source to
select one of the supported formats, a user selects a desired format (one of
the compatible formats) and causes the EDID file content to be
“dynamically” rewritten to place a pointer in “block 0” of the EDID file that

1 Notice of Appeal filed June 23, 2008
2 Non-Final Office Action mailed May 23, 2008
3 Specification page 1
4 Specification page 2
5 Abstract
6 Specification page 2
Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

3
points to a description of the desired format.7 When the video source reads
the EDID file associated with the video display, it reads the user’s choice
and nothing is left to doubt. See generally Abstract, Summary, claim 1.

Evidence Considered
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Chuang 2005/0086398 A1 April 21, 2005
(filed Oct. 20, 2003)
Stone 7,176,980 B2 February 13, 2007
(filed Mar. 23, 2004)
Chaiken 6,223,283 B1 April 24, 2001

The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7-14 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Chuang, Stone and Chaiken. Ans. 3.8

CLAIM 1
Appellants first argue claim 1 which is reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized.
1. A method for establishing what format video is received from a
source of video, comprising:
dynamically establishing at least one parameter associated with a
user-preferred format in at least one memory of a video display system;
communicating at least the parameter to the source to cause the source
to send video to the display system in the desired format; and

7 Specification pages 2 and 6
8 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
June 23, 2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 4,
2008; and (3) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed September 8, 2008.
Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

4
allowing a user to select one parameter from a group of parameters,
wherein the parameter selected by the user is indicated at least in part by
block 0 of an extended display information data (EDID) embodied in an
electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM)
associated with the video display system.

Examiner Findings
The Examiner finds that Chuang discloses dynamically establishing a
parameter representing a video format to be sent to a display device. See
Ans. 49.
According to the Examiner, Stone teaches allowing a user to
dynamically select a preferred video format associated with timing
parameters and communicate that preferred format to a video source to cause
the video source to send video in the desired format. Ans. 4. The Examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to modify the Chuang video display to
include a video source as taught by Stone. Ans. 4.
The Examiner admits that neither Chuang nor Stone teach utilizing
“block 0,” but finds that the table shown in Chaiken column 5 teaches the
format of an EDID file including a map of its memory blocks. Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds that even though there is not “block 0” listed in the EDID
map, the block numbers themselves are arbitrary and are of no particular
significance. Ans. 14-15. The Examiner reasons that it would have been

9 The Examiner interprets the Chuang mother board to be part of the video
display system.
Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

5
obvious to modify the EDID file structure10 to store a parameter indicative of
the user’s preferred format in “block 0” of the EDID file. Ans. 5.

Appellant Contentions
Appellants argue that Chaiken does not teach “block 0” as claimed.
App. Br. 4. There is no mention of “block 0” in the EDID map shown in
Chaiken column 5, referred to by the Examiner. The relied-upon table
represents an EDID standard promulgated by a standards body and that the
block numbers are not at all arbitrarily assigned. App. Br. 4. According to
Appellants, the Examiner’s conclusion that “block 0” is a place that would
have been used to indicate a user’s preferred format is a hindsight
reconstruction based on Appellant’s specification. App. Br. 5. Finally,
Appellants argue that the Chuang EDID that is dynamically rewritten is
stored in a memory associated with the source of video rather than being
associated with the display device. App. Br. 7.

Discussion
We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim 1 language “associated
with the video display system” is broad enough to encompass the
dynamically rewritten EDID file of Chuang even though the EDID file is
stored on a computer motherboard. Applying the term’s broadest reasonable

10 In Chuang, the EDID is altered to properly reflect that a new LCD has
been coupled to a computer mother board. See Chuang figure 2 items 24 and
25.
Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

6
interpretation in light of the Specification, the word “associated” connotes to
us a functional relationship regardless of physical position.
However, we part company with the Examiner regarding the “block
0” limitation of claim 1. Appellants’ invention lies in the recognition that a
particular block of the EDID file (in this case “block 0”) can advantageously
be used to store a pointer to a user selected preferred format, and that by
dynamically rewriting the EDID file to include that pointer, a video source
reading the EDID file automatically can be apprised of the user’s preference,
thereby putting the choice back in the user’s hands rather than relying on the
video source to make that choice. We have read the portions of the
references discussed by both the Examiner and Appellants and do not find
any suggestion of this approach. There is no basis in the record for the
Examiner’s view that “block 0” can read on any block. In the absence of
contrary evidence, we must regard “block 0” as identifying a specific block.
Even if we assume that the Examiner is correct in that “block 0” as
claimed encompasses any block of the EDID, we do not find in any of the
references disclosure of dynamically writing into a block of the EDID a user
choice of display format as claimed. In the absence of such disclosure and
in the absence of any disclosure related to “block 0” in particular, we do not
sustain the rejection as to claim 1. Likewise, we do not sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 3, 4 and 5 depending directly or indirectly from claim 1.

CLAIM 7
Claim 7 is reproduced below.
7. A video display system including at least one processor and at least
one format information storage apparatus, the processor executing logic
comprising:
Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

7
presenting, to a user, a visual display;
permitting the user to use the visual display to define a preferred video
format; and
programming the information storage apparatus such that the
information storage apparatus can indicate to a source of video the preferred
video format such that the source sends video to the display system in the
preferred video format, a checksum associated with the preferred video
format being dynamically established to reflect the parameter selected by the
user.

Although Appellants apply the comments made with respect to claim
1 to claim 7 mutatis mutandis,11 claim 7 does not include limitations directed
to the dynamic modification of the EDID file to include a pointer in “block
0” to a preferred user format. Rather, it more broadly defines that a user
selects a preferred video format and that an “information storage apparatus”
is programmed to indicate that format so that it will be used by a video
source. We find that broad concept to be taught and refer to our discussion
above with respect to claim 1. However, rather than focusing on
dynamically programming “block 0,” claim 7 focuses on establishing a
“checksum” to reflect a user selected parameter.
Appellants argue that the Chaiken “checksum” is not changeable and
that Chaiken requires that the checksum be fixed to “zero.” See App. Br. 8.
The Examiner points out that the Chaiken “checksum” is a 1 byte sum of all
of the 128 bytes shown in the EDID. Ans. 17. The EDID map, as shown in
Chaiken column 5, includes at least one parameter that represents a video
file format. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would have
known that a checksum must be capable of changing to conclude as to

11 Appeal Brief 8.
Appeal 2010-003868
Application 10/896,690

8
whether corruption exists or not.12 We see no evidence in support of the
Examiner’s finding. The claim requires that the “checksum” be
“dynamically established.” We find no evidence in Chaiken suggesting
dynamically establishing a checksum. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8-12
depending directly or indirectly from claim 7.

CLAIM 13
Based on the claim 13 limitations that are similar to those discussed
above with respect to claim 1, we refer to our reasoning above and do not
sustain the rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claims 14 and 16-18.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-14 and 16-18.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-14 and 16-18 is
reversed.

REVERSED

KMF

12 Examiner Answer page 17