STEELCASE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2021

2020003307 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021)

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.
14/827,963 08/17/2015 Michael H. Dunn 871462.01112.PA12423814US 1232
113018 7590 08/24/2021
Steelcase/ Quarles & Brady LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Ste. 2400
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4428
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2021 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
patents@steelcase.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL H. DUNN, IAN G. HUTCHINSON, and
PETER W. HILDEBRANDT
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN Administrative Patent Judges.
CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 6–13.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Steelcase Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner had originally also rejected claims 4 and 5 as obvious (see
Final Act. 8), but subsequently withdrew the rejection of these claims. See
Ans. 6 (stating that “Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 5 are
persuasive.”).
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
As described in the Specification,
[t]he field of the invention is information presentation systems
and more specifically presentation systems that enable
interactive information presentation to an audience within a
conference room or the like where information is presented in a
manner akin to conventional paper type flip charts that can be
dynamically edited in a collaborative fashion.
Spec.3 ¶ 3. The claims are directed to a presentation system. Appeal Br.,
Claims App.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A presentation system comprising:
a portable presentation unit including a rectangular
rotational display screen and a wireless transceiver;
a wireless access point in communication with the
wireless transceiver;
a stationary presentation unit including a stationary
display screen in communication with the wireless access point;
a processor in communication with the wireless access
point, wherein the processor is programmed
to format an image for display on the rectangular
rotational display in the portable presentation unit,

3 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed August 17, 2015
(“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action dated April 25, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”);
Appeal Brief filed October 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer
dated January 27, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

3
to monitor the portable presentation unit for a
command signal to flip an image to the stationary display
screen in the stationary presentation unit,
to produce the image on the stationary display, and
to format a height and width of the image on the
stationary display screen to correlate with the image on
the rotational display in the portable presentation unit.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (some formatting added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Matsuzaki et al.
(“Matsuzaki”)
US 2002/0067318 A1 June 6, 2002
Hara et al. (“Hara”) US 2003/0058227 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Sitrick et al. (“Sitrick”) US 2003/0110925 A1 June 19, 2003
Brown et al. (“Brown”) US 7,134,079 B2 Nov. 7, 2006
Priem US 7,598,948 B1 Oct. 6, 2009
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3 and 6–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sitrick, Priem, Matsuzaki, and Brown.
II. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sitrick, Priem, Matsuzaki, Brown, and Hara.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

4
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections
of claims 1–3 and 6–13.
Rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sitrick, Priem, Matsuzaki, and Brown
Claims 1–3 and 7–12
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner points to Sitrick as disclosing
the claimed presentation system including “a portable presentation unit”
including “a wireless transceiver,” “a wireless access point . . . ,”
“a stationary presentation unit . . . ,” and “a processor in communication
with the wireless access point.” Non-Final Act. 3–4 (citing Sitrick ¶¶ 13, 45,
49, 56, 65, 66, 69, 92, 96, 98, 118, 130, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2). As described
in Sitrick, which relates to electronic music stands, a master workstation
(e.g., for a conductor) communicates wirelessly with individual work
stations (e.g., for individual musicians) to display a musical score on a
display, such as a liquid crystal display. Sitrick ¶¶ 13, 48, 49, 118, 130.
For teaching the claimed “rectangular rotational display screen” of the
portable presentation unit, and the claimed processor programmed to
“format an image for display on the rectangular rotation display,” the
Examiner points to Priem. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Priem 1:48–62, 2:17–
34, 4:12–5:63, 13:59–14:15, Figs. 1A–1G, 6). The Examiner finds that
Priem “describes a rotational display that can be rotated from portrait to
landscape and vice versa. The presented materials are oriented on a screen
according to the rotation of the display.” Id.; Priem 4:12–5:63. The
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

5
Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious . . . to use the Priem
system and method of detecting rotated displays in Sitrick’s electronic image
visualization device” to “make adjusting displayed imagery easier.”
Non-Final Act. 5.
For teaching a processor programmed “to monitor the portable
presentation unit for a command signal to flip an image to the stationary
display screen in the stationary presentation unit” and “to produce the image
on the stationary display,” the Examiner points to Matsuzaki. Non-Final
Act. 5–6 (citing Matsuzaki ¶¶ 38, 49–51, 321, Figs. 16, 17); see also
Ans. 3–4. In Matsuzaki,
[w]hen the user sets to display an image file on a
destination FLCD [(i.e., a ferroelectric liquid crystal display)],
he or she drags the image file to be displayed from those
displayed as icons on the window 410, and drops it on the
destination FLCD on the window 420. When the user drops the
dragged image file on an icon 430 “display on all devices” in the
window 420, all the FLCDs other than the FLCD that displays
the control screen serve as the destinations of that image file.
Matsuzaki ¶ 321; see id. ¶ 4 (defining FLCD).
The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious . . . to use the
Matsuzaki display control in the Sitrick and Priem electronic image
visualization device” to “make it easier to select a device for displaying a
particular image.” Non-Final Act. 6.
Finally, for teaching a processor programmed “to format a height and
width of the image on the stationary display screen to correlate with the
image on the rotational display in the portable presentation unit,” the
Examiner points to Brown. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Brown 10:62–11:3);
see also Ans. 4–5. Brown teaches that “[t]he presentation system . . . can
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

6
work with two or more different document file formats such as PowerPoint
presentations and Adobe Acrobat PDF files. In a preferred embodiment, the
PowerPoint presentations are used to deliver screens of information in
landscape layout, while Acrobat files display information from portrait
layout paginated documents.” Brown 10:64–11:3.
The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious . . . to use the
Brown system and method for multiple screen electronic presentations in the
Sitrick, Priem, and Matsuzaki electronic image visualization device” to
“allow a presenter to effectively and dynamically present material that can
easily be modified and augmented according to each environment in which
the presentation is made.” Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Brown 1:39–43).
Appellant argues that the combined references do not disclose a
processor programmed “to format a height and width of the image on the
stationary display screen to correlate with the image on the rotational display
in the portable presentation unit.” See Appeal Br. 3–4. Appellant notes that,
in Matsuzaki, when selecting an image for display, “[t]he user can drag an
image icon from the window 410 to window 420 to display the image file on
the destination display.” Id. at 4. Appellant continues, “[s]ince the image to
be moved [in Matsuzaki] is displayed as an icon, and the image file is
displayed on the receiving screen, clearly the height and width of the image
is not correlated between the screens.” Id. Appellant recognizes that the
Examiner points also to Brown for this limitation (id.), but argues that “in
Brown, the orientation of a displayed document is determined solely based
on whether the file format of the document is Power Point or Adobe
Acrobat.” Id. (citing Brown 10:62–11:3).
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

7
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. We recognize that
Appellant’s Specification4 teaches, “when display 955 is rotated from the
portrait orientation to the landscape orientation [certain] changes may, in at
least some embodiments, automatically occur.” Spec. ¶ 172. One of these
changes is described, as follows:
First, the number of slave images projected may be dependent
upon unit 955 orientation. To this end, in at least some
embodiments it is contemplated that when display 955 is in the
portrait orientation as illustrated in Fig. 30, each projector 964
and 966 may be programmed to project two separate adjacent
images. For instance, as illustrated in Fig. 30, projector 964
projects first and second images into adjacent spaces 956 and 958
while projector 966 projects first and second images into
adjacent spaces 960 and 962 where each of the projected images
has a portrait form. Referring to Fig. 31, when unit 955 is rotated
into the landscape orientation, the processor that drives the
projectors is programmed to automatically reformat so that each
of projectors 964 and 966 only projects one landscape image.
In Fig. 31, projector 964 projects a first landscape image into
landscape space 980 while projector 966 projects a second image
into landscape space 982.
Id.
In other words, the Specification describes that when the display of
the portable presentation unit (i.e., display 955) is rotated from the portrait
orientation to the landscape orientation, then the spaces onto which the
flipped images are produced in the stationary presentation unit are
correspondingly rotated from portrait orientation (i.e., spaces 956, 958, 960,
962, Fig. 30) to landscape orientation (i.e., spaces 980, 982, Fig. 31).

4 In the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter portion of the Appeal Brief,
Appellant points to the embodiment described at paragraphs 170 to 173 with
respect to this claim limitation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

8
The claim, however, does not require that the image be coextensive
with either of the display screens. Rather, as written, the claim also could
read on an image corresponding to only a portion of the rectangular
rotational display screen being “flipped” to the stationary display screen. In
this instance, the relative orientation of the rotational display and the
presentation spaces is not relevant to whether the images themselves
correlate. The claim also does not require, for example, that the height and
width of the image on the stationary display screen correlate with a height
and width of the image on the rotational display in the portable presentation
unit. Nor does the claim recite any particular manner in which the processor
determines how to correlate the height and width of the image on the
stationary display screen. “Because the applicant has the opportunity to
amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be
interpreted more broadly than is justified.”5 MPEP § 2173.01(I) (citing
In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
One plain and ordinary meaning of “correlate” is “to correspond.”
See “Correlate” Definition, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, available at
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlate. In Brown, for
example, if the image previewed on the center monitor 212 is a PowerPoint
presentation, the materials displayed by left projector 232 and/or right

5 In the event of further prosecution, we also note some inconsistencies in
the claim language that Appellant may wish to consider addressing with an
amendment. For example, in claim 1, “rectangular rotational display screen”
is also recited as “rectangular rotational display” and “rotational display”;
and “stationary display screen” is also recited as “stationary display.”
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

9
projector 236 will display in landscape layout (i.e., “having a wider width
than height”). Ans. 4 (citing Brown 10:62–11:3). Likewise, if the image
previewed on the center monitor 212 is an Adobe Acrobat PDF file,
materials displayed by left projector 232 and/or right projector 236 will
display in portrait layout (i.e., “having less width than height”). Ans. 4
(citing Brown 10:62–11:3); see also Brown 5:4–11, Fig. 2.
In other words, the height and width of the materials displayed by the
projectors in Brown correspond to the file format of the image previewed on
the center monitor. As noted above, the claim does not require that the
height and width of the image on the stationary display screen correlate with
a height and width of the image on the rotational display in the portable
presentation unit. Thus, we find that Brown teaches the limitation “to
format a height and width of the image on the stationary display screen to
correlate with the image on the rotational display in the portable presentation
unit.” Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner “fails to establish a logical
reason to combine” Brown with Sitrick, Priem, and Matsuzaki. Appeal
Br. 4. Appellant contends that the portion of Brown relied upon in the
rejection (Brown 10:62–11:3) does not “improve the ability to dynamically
present material, modify material, or augment material,” which is the
Examiner’s stated reason to combine. Appeal Br. 5; see Final Act. 7 (citing
Brown 1:39–43, as providing a reason to combine). Appellant asserts that,
instead, Brown at column 10, line 62 through column 11, line 3 describes
“lock[ing] the orientation of an image into a particular[] orientation based
solely on whether that image is in a Power Point or an Adobe format.”
Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

10
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in incorporating features of
Brown into the Sitrick, Priem, and Matsuzaki device. Brown “contemplates
within its scope other presentation environments in which multiple screens
and dynamic annotation capability are beneficial” (Brown 2:61–64), such as
the multiple music stand displays of Sitrick (as modified by Priem and
Matsuzaki). See Sitrick ¶¶ 12, 48, 67 117, 118, 202 (describing multiple
workstations that display music as directed by a master workstation and a
“draw mode [that] allows the user to draw notes or notations on the music or
other displayed image”).
Finally, Appellant contends that Sitrick is non-analogous art. Appeal
Br. 5–7. In particular, Appellant argues that the field of the invention is
“presentation systems that enable interactive information presentation to an
audience within a conference room or the like where information is
presented in a manner akin to conventional paper type flip charts that can be
dynamically edited in a collaborative fashion.” Id. at 6 (quoting Spec. ¶ 3).
Appellant further argues that “[t]he field of the Sitrick reference is
specifically stated to be ‘the field of music’” and “[m]ore particularly, the
field is ‘an architecture, system, apparatus, and methodology ... for
displaying musical compositions ... and communicating music data and/or
music performances.’” Id. (quoting Sitrick ¶ 3). Accordingly to Appellant,
“Sitrick, therefore, is clearly not in the field of the claimed invention.” Id.
Appellant also contends, without further argument, that “Sitrick does
not address problems related to flip charts, such as those set forth in the
paragraphs cited above [(Spec. ¶¶ 9–13)].” Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

11
In the Answer, the Examiner explains:
Sitrick discloses displaying information on a master workstation
and allowing a conductor to select data for display on a slave
display (paragraphs [0130], [0132] and [0138]). Sitrick discloses
that the “present invention also includes display of any image
data utilized for facilitating or otherwise enhancing performance,
including graphics, text animations, video-in-video, instant
messaging, collaborative networking of editing and selective or
transfer of music composition, announcements, etc.” (Paragraph
[0067]). Thus, Sitrick does suggest, for example, allowing a
conductor to flip sheet music from a conductor’s display to a
performer’s display and performing operations that extend
beyond just displaying music.
Ans. 5–6.
We are unpersuaded that Sitrick is non-analogous art. A reference is
analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The claims recite a “presentation system,”
generally. See also Spec. ¶ 3 (describing “the field of the invention is
information presentation systems” before describing the more particular
field Appellant quotes above). The claims do not include limitations
directed to “enabl[ing] interactive information presentation to an audience
within a conference room or the like where information is presented in a
manner akin to conventional paper type flip charts that can be dynamically
edited in a collaborative fashion,” as argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 6).
Similarly, the Abstract of Sitrick states: “An electronic image
visualization system, such as a music stand system and display, management
and communications methodologies relating thereto are presented.”
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

12
(emphases added). Although we agree with Appellant that Sitrick indicates
that it “relates to the field of music,” Sitrick also states that it “relates to an
architecture, system, apparatus and methodology relating to the construction
and utilization of a subsystem (or a plurality of subsystems) for displaying
musical compositions, either batch or in a real time environment, and
processing and communicating music data and/or user performances.”
Sitrick ¶ 3 (emphases added). Appellant does not argue that the musical
compositions displayed in Sitrick are not images.
For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the rejection. We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7–12, which depend
therefrom, and are not argued separately.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites that “the stationary presentation unit includes at least
one projector.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Brown teaches projectors. Final Act. 9
(citing Brown 3:27–46, Fig. 3 (projectors 114a, 144b)). The Examiner
reasons that that “it would have been obvious . . . to use the Brown system
and method for multiple screen electronic presentations in the Sitrick, Priem,
and Matsuzaki electronic image visualization device” to “allow a presenter
to effectively and dynamically present material that can easily be modified
and augmented according to each environment in which the presentation is
made.” Ans. 6 (citing Brown 1:39–43).
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to include a
projector in the Sitrick system because Sitrick “isn’t intended for
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

13
presentations, or to annotate presentations for a group, and is not intended
for collaboration.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further contends that “any
suggestion to add a projector to a system [that] is intended to be used, for
example, by marching bands is entirely misplaced, and would clearly not be
considered by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in incorporating features of
Brown into the Sitrick, Priem, and Matsuzaki device. As discussed above
with respect to claim 1, Brown “contemplates within its scope other
presentation environments in which multiple screens and dynamic
annotation capability are beneficial” (Brown 2:61–64), such as the multiple
music stand displays of Sitrick (as modified by Priem and Matsuzaki) (see
Sitrick ¶¶ 12, 48, 67 117, 118, 202 (describing multiple workstations that
display music as directed by a master workstation and a “draw mode [that]
allows the user to draw notes or notations on the music or other displayed
image”)).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sitrick, Priem, Matsuzaki, Brown, and Hara
Claim 13 recites that “the rectangular rotational display comprises a
writable and erasable surface.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Hara discloses this limitation. Final Act. 10
(citing Hara ¶ 47). Hara teaches:
The second drawing tool comprises a mouse operation tool 61
selected in mouse operation using the electronic pen 107, a pen
drawing tool 62 selected in drawing free lines on the PC
screen 105, an eraser tool 63 selected in erasing part or all of the
free lines drawn with the pen drawing tool 62, a page information
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

14
registration button 64 for storing base image and free line data
on selection as page information, a document save button 65 for
saving the page information stored on selection as document
information, and a setting button 66 for displaying a dialog box
to change the width, color of the pen drawing tool and the size of
the eraser tool 63.
Hara ¶ 47.
The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious . . . to use the
Hara [surface6] in the Sitrick, Priem, Matsuzaki, and Brown electronic
image visualization device” to “allow a presenter to annotate presentation
more easily.” Final Act. 10–11.
Appellant contends that Sitrick “isn’t intended for presentations, or to
annotate presentations for a group.” Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner responds, finding that “Sitrick is intended for
collaboration with other users.” Ans. 7. As support, the Examiner points to
the following disclosure of Sitrick:
The present invention also includes display of any image data
utilized for facilitating or otherwise enhancing performance,
including graphics, text animations, video-in-video, instant
messaging, collaborative networking of editing and selective or
transfer of music composition, announcements, etc.
Sitrick ¶ 67.
Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
combination. Sitrick teaches the ability to annotate. Sitrick ¶ 12. The

6 The rejection says “projector” rather than “surface.” We understand this to
by harmless clerical error, as the rejection clearly relies on Hara as
disclosing the claimed “writable and erasable surface” rather than a
projector. See Final Act. 10–11.
Appeal 2020-003307
Application 14/827,963

15
“drawing tool” of Hara is used in an “electronic whiteboard system,” for
drawing and erasing (i.e., annotating). Hara ¶¶ 18, 47.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 and 6–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–12 103 Sitrick, Priem,
Matsuzaki, Brown
1–3, 6–12
13 103 Sitrick, Priem,
Matsuzaki, Brown,
Hara
13
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED