Ex Parte Casper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

12451689 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/451,689
68543 7590
Arent Fox LLP
555 West Fifth Street
48th Floor
11124/2009
02/26/2016
Los Angeles, CA 90013
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Alan Casper
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.
033163-00367 3214
EXAMINER
SATTI,HUMAMM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
LAIPDocket@arentfox.com
Patent_Mail@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ALAN CASPER, JAY B. SHINN, and
MARK ALAN NARVESON
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4--12, and 14--25. Claims 2, 3, and 13 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates a vision mixer that includes a video
processor and a switching matrix. The switching matrix has a first matrix
portion, which selects signals for the video processor, and a second matrix
portion, which selects output signals for destinations other than the video
processor and beyond the vision mixer. (Abstract.)
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
1. A vision mixer comprising:
a video processor; and,
a switching matrix having:
a first matrix portion for selecting a first set of
signals for routing within said vision mixer to said video
processor, and
a second matrix portion different than said first
matrix portion for selecting a second set of signals for
routing to output destinations other than said video
processor and said vision mixer,
wherein said first matrix portion is controlled by a first
protocol associated with said vision mixer, and
wherein control of said second matrix portion can be
delegated from said vision mixer to an external switcher, to be
controlled by a second protocol of said external switcher, which
is different from said first protocol.
Claims 1 and 4--11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shoda (US 5,343,193; Aug. 30, 1994), Jackson (US
4,858,011; Aug. 15, 1989), and Harmon (US 2008/0019388 Al; Jan. 24,
2008).
Claims 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jackson and Harmon.
Claims 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shoda and Harmon.
Claims 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shoda, Harmon, and Salandro (US 6,519,540 Bl; Feb. 11, 2003).
2
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection---Shoda, Jackson, and Harmon
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9-10, 12;
see also Reply Br. 11) that the combination of Shoda, Jackson, and Harmon
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations "a first matrix portion" and "a second matrix portion."
The Examiner found that the matrix switcher units MX 1 and MX2 of
Shoda, respectively, correspond to the limitations "a first matrix portion"
and "a second matrix portion." (Ans. 4--5.) We agree with the Examiner.
Shoda relates to a matrix switcher for arbitrarily distributing a
plurality of channel input to a plurality of channel outputs. (Col. 1, 11. 9-13.)
Figure 3 of Shoda illustrates a block diagram of a matrix switcher (col. 2,
1. 67 to col. 3, 1. 2), including "matrix switcher units or arrangements MXl
and MX2 for arbitrarily distributing inputs (e.g., video or audio signals of 32
channels, etc.) through input terminals ... to a plurality of channel outputs
(32 channels) ... to deliver the distributed outputs (col. 3, 11. 19-24.)
Because Shoda explains that matrix switcher includes matrix switcher units
or arrangements MX 1 and MX2, Shoda teaches the limitations "a first
matrix portion" and "a second matrix portion."
Appellants argue that "an examination of the cited portions of Shoda
reveals that fig. 3 (a) and fig. 3 (b ), show two interconnected matrix switcher
units MX 1 and MX2, respectively" and thus, "MX 1 and MX2 are not part of
a single switching matrix having a first and second portion, as recited in
claim 1, but rather, are two matrix switching units interconnected as an
example of expansion." (App. Br. 12.) However, Appellants' arguments are
not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not
3
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
expressly require the claimed "first matrix portion" and "second matrix
portion" to be part of a single switching matrix. (See Claim 1.)
The Examiner also found that video switch 41 of Harmon, for priority
control interface 92 along connection 91 c, corresponds to the limitation
"first matrix portion" and that video switch 43 of Harmon, for priority
control interface 92 along connection 91 a, corresponds to the limitation
"second matrix portion." (Ans. 18.) We agree with the Examiner.
Harmon relates to system controllers which "dynamically prioritize
critical digital video data streams traveling across a network backbone over
other non-priority video data." (i-f 2.) Harmon explains that
systems for controlling the routing and prioritization of digital
video streams configured in a video connection matrix in a
packet switched network that optionally includes a high-speed
network backbone that include several [components] including:
... (2) a system controller for controlling the routing and
prioritization of live video streams in a packet switched
network that include a control interface configured to receive
video matrix switching commands to alter the video matrix, a
video switch interface connected to the video switches operable
to transmit video switching commands to the video switches to
alter the video connection matrix.
(i-f 3.) Figure 7 of Harmon illustrates digital video switching system,
modified to prioritize live feeds though a priority control channel (i-f 28),
including priority control interface 92 connected to connections 91a, 91b,
and 91c to router 44, router 46a, and router 43, such that "router 44 ...
prioritize[ s] traffic and a source address of the satellite input device and the
destination address of the video switch 41" and "[ v ]ideo switch 41 ...
delivers a command to routers 4 3 and 46a through connections 91 b and 91 c
to prioritize traffic having a source address of video switch 41 and a
destination address of consumer 4 7 a" (i-f 4 7). Because the routers and
4
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
switcher of Harmon are used to prioritize tratlic (e.g., video data) within a
video matrix, Harmon teaches the limitations a "first matrix portion" and a
"second matrix portion."
Appellants argue "that Harmon fails, either in the cited portion, or
anywhere within the reference, to teach or suggest that a switching matrix of
a vision mixer is composed of two exclusive matrix portions ('a first matrix
portion' and 'a second matrix portion different than said first matrix
portion.')" (App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 11.) In particular, Appellants
argue "[p ]riority control interface 92 [of Harmon] is not a separate portion of
the switching matrix, but rather, according to Harmon, an interface 'to
prioritize traffic having a source address of video switch 41 and a destination
address of consumer 4 7 a."' (Reply Br. 11.) However, the claimed "first
matrix portion" and "second matrix portion" are broad enough to encompass
the routers and switchers of Harmon, which are used to prioritize traffic
(e.g., video data) within a video matrix.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Shoda,
Jackson, and Harmon would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitations "a first matrix portion" and "a second matrix
portion."
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-12;
see also Reply Br. 10) that the combination of Shoda, Jackson, and Harmon
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations "a first protocol " and "a second protocol ... which is different
from said first protocol."
The Examiner found that the digital video switching system of
Harmon, which is integrated with router control system having different
5
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
manufacturers and different protocols, corresponds to the limitations "a first
protocol" and "a second protocol ... which is different from said first
protocol." (Ans. 18-19.) We agree with the Examiner.
Figure 8 of Harmon illustrates a digital video switching system that
integrates a router control system and an IP router. (ii 29.) Harmon explains
that "the IP routers 102 may be a mix of routers from different suppliers,
wherein either a common protocol between the router control system 101
and the IP routers 102 is used, or alternatively router control system 101
may be configured to support different protocols as used by different
manufacturers." (ii 52.) Because Harmon explains that a digital video
switching system is integrated with IP routers, which "may be configured to
support different protocols as used by different manufacturers," Harmon
teaches the limitations "a first protocol" and "a second protocol ... which is
different from said first protocol."
Appellants argue that:
Harmon discloses, where switchers 106 may be provided by the
same or a different manufacturer, and "the IP routers 102 may
be a mix of routers from different suppliers, wherein a common
protocol between the router control system is used, or
alternatively router control system 101 may be configured
to support different protocols as used by different
manufacturers." Thus, the router control system 101 may be
configured to support transmission of control signals using
different protocols as appropriate to each different router
manufacturer; but the router control system 101 does not
receive control signals according to different protocols.
(App. Br. 11 (citation omitted).) Similarly, Appellants argue:
paragraph [0052] specifically teaches "the different elements of
the architecture may be supplied from different manufacturers
so long as common protocols are used . . . . Thus, the IP
routers 102 may be a mix of routers from different suppliers,
6
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
wherein either a common protocol between the router control
system 101 and the IP routers 102 is used, or alternatively
router control system 101 may be configured to support
different protocols as used by different manufacturers." The
foregoing is quite clear on the point that, "different elements of
the architecture may be supplied from different manufacturers,
so long as common protocols are used."
(Reply Br. 10 (emphasis in original).) However, as discussed previously,
Harmon explains that as an alternative to the use of a common protocol,
"router control system 101 may be configured to support different protocols
as used by different manufacturers." (i-f 52.)
Appellants further argue that "a close examination of the cited portion
of Jackson reveals that nothing is stated about protocols associated with the
video switcher (source selector 2)" and "Appellant has diligently studied the
Jackson reference and is unable to find any teaching or suggestion of the
claimed limitation." (App. Br. 12.) However, the Examiner also cited to
Harmon for teaching the limitation "a first protocol." (Ans. 18-19.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Shoda,
Jackson, and Harmon would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitations "a first protocol" and "a second protocol ...
which is different from said first protocol."
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-
11; see also Reply Br. 12) that the combination of Shoda, Jackson, and
Harmon would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation "an external switcher."
The Examiner found that the switcher of Jackson, in which a source
selector that receives external video signals, corresponds to the limitation
"an external switcher." (Ans. 19.) The Examiner concluded that "it would
7
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
have been obvious to combine the embodiments of Harmon with that of
Jackson for the common knowledge purpose of utilizing an additional
functionality of routing signals for further signal processing." (Id.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Jackson relates to a video switcher system. (Col. 1, 1. 6.) Figure 1 of
Jackson illustrates a block diagram of a conventional video mixing system or
switcher, including "a source selector 2 which receives multiple video input
signals, e.g. from external video signal sources, and provides selected ones
of these input signals to mix/effects amplifiers (M/Es) 4." (Col. 1, 11. 11-
14.) Because Jackson explains that source selector 2 receives external video
signal sources, Jackson teaches the limitation "an external switcher."
Appellants argue "Harmon further fails to teach or disclose where the
'first matrix portion is responsive to control by a first protocol associated
with said vision mixer' while the second matrix portion may be controlled
by an external switcher controlled by a second protocol different from the
first protocol" because "Harmon teaches that control of the matrix is
performed through a single controller, and that a single controller device
controls the configuration of the video matrix switch." (App. Br. 10; see
also Reply Br. 12.) Similarly, Appellants argue that "the router control
system in question [of Harmon], which presumably includes the switching
matrix recited in claims 1 and 7, transmits control signals, but does not
receive control signals from an external switcher." (App. Br. 11.)
However, the Examiner cited to Jackson, rather than Harmon, for teaching
the limitation "an external switcher." (Ans. 19.)
8
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Shoda,
Jackson, and Harmon would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation "an external switcher."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4---6 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 7 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of
claim 7, as well as dependent claims 8-11, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Jackson and Harmon
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 12 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1 (see App.
Br. 14), and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent
claims 14 and 15. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 12, 14, and 15.
§ 103 Rejection---Shoda and Harmon
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 16 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 1 7-21
9
Appeal2014-002279
Application 12/451,689
(see App. Br. 14-15). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 16-21.
§ 103 Rejection---Shoda, Harmon, and Salandro
Although Appellants contend "a careful examination of the cited
portions of Salandro makes no reference to and does not teach or suggest,
control according to a first or second protocol, wherein the second protocol
is not native to the vision mixer" (App. Br. 16) and "claims 22-25 contains
[sic] no recitation for providing 'a graphical representation of input/ output
mapping/connections thereby simplifying switcher/router manipulation'"
(id. at 17), we note that the Examiner is relying on Harmon, not Salandro, to
teach a second protocol not native to said vision mixer (see Final Act. 9).
Thus, Appellants' contention fails to rebut the Examiner's specific findings.
Furthermore, we point out that Appellants are merely highlighting the
Examiner's articulated reason for combining the references, i.e., providing a
graphical representation of input/output ... , which does not necessarily
have to correlate with the claim language.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 22-25, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--12, and 14--25 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10