Ex Parte 7113978 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 2012

90010628 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
90/010,628 07/30/2009 7113978 2540-1195 6592
42624 7590 05/08/2012
DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
4300 WILSON BLVD., 7TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
CHOI, WOO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AVOCENT REDMOND CORP.,
Appellant and Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and THOMAS L.
GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from a final
rejection of claims 27-32, 34, 38, and 41. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306. This case is related to Appeal 2012-000093
(Reexamination Control 90/010,626).
We heard oral arguments on April 18, 2012.

Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for ex parte reexamination filed
by Tracy W. Druce on July 30, 2009, of United States Patent 7,113,978 B2
(the ‘978 Patent) issued to Danny L. Beasley, Robert V. Seifert, Jr., Paul
Lacrampe, James C. Huffington, Thomas Greene, and Kevin J. Hafer on
September 26, 2006. Presently, claims 27-32, 34, 38, and 41 stand rejected,
with claims 1-23, 25, 26, and 42 confirmed as patentable.
Patentee’s invention relates to a system for interconnecting remotely
located computers (Spec, col. 1, ll. 11-12). Claim 27 reads as follows:
27. A system for connecting a workstation of the type
that includes a user-input device and a video monitor to plural
remote computer systems, comprising:
a first signal conditioning device coupled to the
workstation user-input device for receiving a first set of
electronic signals produced by the user-input device;
a first communication link coupled to the first signal
conditioning device for carrying information corresponding to
the received first set of electronic signals;
a crosspoint switch including a number of outputs, said
crosspoint switch transferring information corresponding to the
received first set of electronic signals from the first
communication link to at least one of the outputs;
a plurality of second communication links coupled to the
outputs of the crosspoint switch;
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

3
a plurality of second signal conditioning devices coupled
to the remote computer systems, at least one of the second
signal conditioning devices for receiving information
corresponding to the received first set of electronic signals
transmitted on one of the plurality of second communication
links and for supplying the information corresponding to the
received first set of electronic signals to a user-input device
input of a corresponding remote computer, the plurality of
second signal conditioning devices receiving analog video
signal produced by the remote computer systems and
transmitting the analog video signals to the crosspoint switch;
and
an analog video link for coupling the crosspoint switch to
a computer monitor associated with the user-input device,
wherein the first signal conditioning device further transmits a
second set of electronic signals, produced by the user-input
device, via the first communication link for controlling the
crosspoint switch to select the analog video signals of one of
the remote computer systems for display on the computer
monitor.
(App. Br. 41, Claims Appendix).

The Examiner cites the following references:

Fukada 4,893,175 Jan. 9, 1990
Diefendorff EP 0174099 Mar. 12, 1986
Horiuchi JP 5-27721 Feb. 5, 1993

The Examiner rejects claims 27, 38, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Horiuchi; claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Horiuchi and Diefendorff; and claims 30-32 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Horiuchi, and Fukada.
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 27, 38, and 41; claims 28 and
29; and claims 30-32 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Horiuchi, the combination of Horiuchi and Diefendorff, and the combination
of Horiuchi and Fukada, respectively?

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).

ANALYSIS
User-input device input
Claim 27 recites a second signal conditioning device supplying
information to a user-input device input of a remote computer. As the
Examiner points out, Horiuchi discloses “interface devices 2a to 2n” (¶
[0011]) and “transfer lines that perform information transfer from the . . .
interface apparatuses to the information terminal devices 1a to 1n” (¶
[0014]).
Appellant argues that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest the user-
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

5
input device input as claimed because “Horiuchi does not disclose what the
input interface is to the information terminal devices” (App. Br. 16).
However, as stated above, Horiuchi discloses an interface device that
transfers information to an information terminal device. Appellant has not
adequately demonstrated any difference between a device transferring
information to another device (Horiuchi) and a device (i.e., a “signal
conditioning device”) supplying information to another device (i.e., a
“remote computer”) as recited in claim 27.
Appellant points out that Horiuchi does disclose “transmission lines
for transmission of information” (App. Br. 16) but argues that Horiuchi
“does not disclose the format of that information [that is transmitted from
the interface device to the information terminal device] . . . .” (App. Br. 16).
Claim 27 merely recites that the information being transferred corresponds
to a set of electronic signals, which does not appear to differ from the
information being transferred by Horiuchi. Appellant does not indicate that
claim 27 requires a specific format of the information being transferred
(other than corresponding to electronic signals) and how such a specific
format (even if recited by claim 27) differs from the format of the
information being transferred as disclosed by Horiuchi.
Appellant also proposes a series of general inquiries (App. Br. 17-18).
Since none of the proposed inquiries sufficiently demonstrates a difference
between Horiuchi and the features recited in claim 27, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments and inquiries.
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

6

Remote computer system
Appellant argues that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest a remote
computer system (see, e.g., App. Br. 18). We disagree with Appellant’s
contention for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 10-15).
As the Examiner points out, Horiuchi discloses “information terminal
devices [that] are devices that convert stock price information or the like that
is sent in . . . ” (¶ [0010]). In other words, the information terminal devices
of Horiuchi receive data and convert the received data into video signals
(i.e., “video signals converted by the information terminal devices” – ¶
[0002]). We agree with the Examiner that Horiuchi’s “information terminal
devices” are computers since the “information terminal devices” perform
functions of a computer under a broad but reasonable construction.
While Appellant generally argues that Horiuchi’s “information
terminal devices” are not “computers” (see, e.g., App. Br. 18), Appellant has
provided insufficient support for this contention and does not indicate a
specialized definition of the term “computer” in the Specification that differs
from Horiuchi’s disclosure of “information terminal devices.” In the
absence of an explicit definition of the term “computer” in the Specification,
the Examiner defines the term broadly but reasonably to include “[a]ny
device capable of processing information to produce a desired result” (Reply
Br. 5). We find no difference between a device capable of processing
information to produce a desired result (i.e., a “computer”) and Horiuchi’s
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

7
“information terminal device” that also processes information (i.e., processes
information in order to convert data to video signals) to produce a desired
result (i.e., output video signals).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s broad but reasonable definition
of the term “computer” is improper and proposes a different definition,
namely, “[a]ny machine that . . . accepts structured input, processes it
according to prescribed rules, and produces the results as output” (Reply Br.
5). Even assuming Appellant’s proposed definition of the term “computer”
is correct, we find no difference between Horiuchi’s “information terminal
device” that receives “structured input” (i.e., input data to be converted to
video signals), processes the “structured input” (i.e., converts the input data
to video signals) according to prescribed rules, and produces the results as
output (i.e., produces and outputs the converted video signal).
Appellant argues that Horiuchi’s “information terminal device” is not
a “computer” because, according to Appellant, the “information terminal
device” does not “perform any function besides . . . displaying ‘stock price
information or the like’” (App. Br. 19). Hence, Appellant appears to argue
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a computer as
only performing multiple functions and that any device that processes data
and that performs one function is not a computer. Appellant has not
indicated where in the Specification this specialized quality of a “computer”
(as a device that processes data but performs one function) can be found.
We do not independently find this definition in the Specification. In the
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

8
absence of such a disclosed requirement and definition, we disagree with
Appellant’s overly narrow construction of the term “computer.” Using a
broad but reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that a computer can either perform one function or multiple
functions depending on the user’s needs.
Appellant cites the Specification (col. 4, ll. 11-16) and the Declaration
of Joseph C. McAlexander, III (dated July 12, 2010) and argues “keyboard
communication with a computer is bidirectional – not unidirectional” (App.
Br. 21). Based on this assumption, Appellant states that Horiuchi transmits
data from an interface device to the information terminal device
unidirectionally (and not bidirectionally) and therefore supposedly does not
disclose a computer. As support for this contention, Appellant states that the
Specification discloses the following:
As the user is operating the remote server computer, the remote
computer may transmit commands which affect the operation of
the mouse and keyboard. These include the mouse sensitivity,
the keyboard repeat rate, activating one or more LEDs on the
keyboard (such as the number lock, capital letter lock, etc.).
Specification, col. 4, ll. 19-25.
As an initial matter, we note that, contrary to Appellant’s assertion,
the Specification does not appear to disclose whether keyboard
communication with a computer is bidirectional or unidirectional. Rather,
the Specification merely discloses that a computer may transmit commands
that “affect the operation of the mouse and keyboard” (col. 4, ll. 11-16). Of
note is that the Specification does not disclose to or from where or in which
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

9
direction such commands are being transmitted, only that the commands
(wherever they may be going and wherever they may have originated) affect
certain operations of the mouse or keyboard in some way.
Even assuming that the Specification discloses that a computer
communicates with an attached mouse and keyboard in a bidirectional
manner such that signals are transmitted from the computer to the
mouse/keyboard and from the mouse/keyboard back to the computer
(Appellant has not demonstrated that the Specification does provide such a
disclosure, however), the Specification merely would have provided an
example of such a function and would not have required the computer to
perform in this manner. Rather, the Specification would have merely
disclosed that a computer may function in this manner.
In addition, the alleged unidirectional transmission lines of Horiuchi
(i.e., Fig. 1, 12a-12n) represent a communication between an interface
device (2a-2n) and the “information terminal device” and do not represent a
communication between the “information terminal device” and a
mouse/keyboard according to the Examiner. Therefore, even assuming that
connections between a computer and a mouse/keyboard must be
bidirectional as Appellant asserts, it would be immaterial whether the
connection between the “information terminal device” and the “interface
device” of Horiuchi is unidirectional or bidirectional since the Examiner
does not equate the “interface device” of Horiuchi with a mouse/keyboard of
the information terminal device.
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

10
Appellant also argues that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest a
remote computer system so therefore also fails to disclose or suggest a
second signal conditioning device or a crosspoint switch as recited in claim
27 (App. Br. 25). As above, Appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated
that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest a computer system. Therefore, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.

Claim 38 - Keyboard
Claim 38 recites that the user-input device comprises a keyboard.
Appellant argues that “Horiuchi does not disclose that the information
terminal devices includes [sic] a keyboard input” (App. Br. 27). However,
claim 38 requires that the user-input device comprises a keyboard while
Horiuchi discloses user devices (e.g., “operating terminal 4a” – Fig. 1) that
comprise a keyboard (e.g., “Keyboard 4a2 – Fig. 1). Appellant has not
provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the keyboard of Horiuchi
differs from the keyboard as recited in claim 38.

Claim 41 – Controlling the crosspoint switch
Appellant argues that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest controlling
the crosspoint switch to select one of the computer systems because “there is
no disclosure [in Horiuchi] of what information is transmitted from the key
data converters . . . .” (App. Br. 28). However, as the Examiner points out,
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

11
Horiuchi discloses controlling the crosspoint switch,1 and selecting a video
signal to display.2 Even assuming Appellant’s argument to be correct that
Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest “what information is transmitted from
the key data converters,” Appellant has not adequately demonstrated that
Horiuchi also fails to disclose or suggest controlling the crosspoint switch
and selecting a computer system. As previously described, we agree with
the Examiner that Horiuchi discloses these features.

Claims 28 and 29 – Combination of Horiuchi and Diefendorff
Appellant also argues that it would not have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Horiuchi and Diefendorff
references. We disagree with Appellant at least for the reasons set forth by
the Examiner (Ans. 6 and 19-21).
As described above and as indicated by the Examiner, Horiuchi
discloses a data processing device (i.e., “computer” or “information terminal
device”). Diefendorff further discloses that data processing devices include
a keyboard and a mouse (Ans. 5; Diefendorff, Fig. 2). Given the high level
of skill in the art as well as the explicit disclosure of Diefendorff, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have known that data processing devices, such

1 E.g., “The keyed-in information . . . is sent to the controller 3b of the
control apparatus . . . the control apparatus 3 outputs a switching control
signal . . . based on the sent information” (¶ [0016-0017]).

2 E.g., “the specified information terminal device is switched to the video
signal to be output” (¶ [0016-0017]).
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

12
as the “information terminal device” of Horiuchi (i.e., “computers”), contain
a mouse and keyboard and were utilized as such to achieve a predictable
result of, for example, inputting data into the computer (as disclosed by
Diefendorff). Since the use of known components of a system in known
ways to achieve a predictable result would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art (KSR Int'l Co., 550 U.S. at 406), we agree with the
Examiner that combining Horiuchi and Diefendorff would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant argues that “one of skill in the art . . . would [not] have
looked to Diefendorff to supplement or modify the teachings of Horiuchi”
(App. Br. 32 and 35). We disagree with Appellant. We agree with the
Examiner that the level of skill in the art is high such that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have known, based on Diefendorff, that a data
processing device has a keyboard and mouse and that a similar data
processing device (e.g., the data processing device of Horiuchi) would have
included a keyboard and mouse since both devices are data processing
devices. Appellant has not adequately demonstrated why it would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the known
features of a data processing device (Diefendorff) with another (similar) data
processing device (Horiuchi).
Even assuming that the data processing device of Horiuchi did not
include a keyboard and mouse as Appellant appears to contend, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a similar data processing
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

13
device (Diefendorff) would have included a keyboard and mouse and that
including a keyboard and mouse on a similar data processing device (of
Horiuchi) would have improved the data processing device of Horiuchi in
the same way. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious . . . .” KSR
Int'l Co., 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant argues that “Diefendorff is directed to solving problems
that are not contemplated or addressed in Horiuchi” (App. Br. 33) but does
not provide a sufficient showing that, even if Diefendorff is, in fact, directed
to solving problems not contemplated by Horiuchi, it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied known features of
a data processing device (Diefendorff) to another (similar) data processing
device performing the same function of data processing. For reasons set
forth above and provided by the Examiner, we agree it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the known
features of Horiuchi and Diefendorff.
Claim 28 recites that the user-input device comprises a mouse. As
stated above, given that the level of skill in the art is high and that
Diefendorff explicitly discloses that a mouse would have been included in a
processing device (e.g., “workstation” or “operating terminal”), we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have utilized a mouse with the “operating terminal” of Horiuchi.
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

14
Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence that the “operating terminal”
of Horiuchi differs from the processing device of Diefendorff. Indeed, the
respective devices both receive, process, and display data.

Claims 30-32 and 34 - Combination of Fukada and Horiuchi
Appellant also argues that it would not have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Fukada reference with the
Horiuchi reference (App. Br. 37-39). We disagree with Appellant at least
for the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 7 and 21-23).
As described above and as indicated by the Examiner, Horiuchi
discloses conversion of data into video signals but does not appear to
provide specific information about known features of the technical aspects
of the video signals themselves. As the Examiner points out, Fukada
discloses that color video signals include red, green, and blue video signals
(Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized video signals in Horiuchi that
include, for example, red, green, and blue video signals because, as
disclosed by Fukada, color video would have been known and had been used
by those of skill in the art and such video signals would have been known to
contain such colored signals (e.g., red, green, and blue video signals).
Appellant argues that Horiuchi “could very well be using a
monochrome monitor” and that Fukada’s “complicated transmission system
. . . is not necessary to [implement] a color video system” (App. Br. 39).
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

15
However, we agree with the Examiner that even assuming that
Horiuchi is utilizing monochrome video signals (which Appellant has not
sufficiently demonstrated), it would at least have been obvious to utilize
color video signals since color video signals were well known and widely
used (as disclosed by Fukada) and Appellant has provided insufficient
evidence to show that effecting such a combination (i.e., utilizing color
video signals) was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the
level of complexity of the Fukada system (see, e.g., App. Br. 38) at least
because the Appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated that an alleged high
level of complexity of Fukada’s system indicates whether one of ordinary
skill in the art would have known that color video signals contain color
video signal components. Based on Fukada’s disclosure of color video
signals known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the use and constitution of color video signals and that color
video signals would contain, for example, red, green, and blue video signals
(as recited in claim 3).

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 27, 38,
and 41 as obvious over Horiuchi; claims 28 and 29 as obvious over Horiuchi
Appeal 2012-001011
Reexamination Control 90/010,628
Patent 7,113,978 B2

16
and Diefendorff; and claims 30-32 and 34 as obvious over Horiuchi and
Fukada.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-32, 34, 38, and 41 is
affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

rvb

Patent Owner

DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
4300 Wilson Blvd., 7th Floor
Arlington, VA 22203

Third Party Requester

NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP
(NDQ Reexamination Group)
1000 Louisiana Street, Fifty-Third Floor
Houston, TX 77002