Ex Parte Cheng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 7, 201713168666 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/168,666 06/24/2011 Shang-Che Cheng 46473.2 1490 86012 7590 VLP Law Group LLP 555 Bryant Street Suite 820 Palo Alto, CA 94301 EXAMINER TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/11/2017 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): patents @ vlplawgroup. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHANG-CHE CHENG, WEI-HAN WU, and CHIA-MING LIN Appeal 2017-003060 Application 13/168,666 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-003060 Application 13/168,666 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to an intelligent platform. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1 A computing platform that accommodates a portable computing device, comprising: a housing having a slot into which the portable computing device may be received; a plurality of interfaces for interfacing with the portable computing device including a power interface and at least one of: a data interface and a video interface; a plurality of peripheral interfaces, including at least one of: an input device interface and an output device interface; an electrical connector provided for carrying signals of at least one of the interfaces, the electrical connector being provided on an inner wall of the slot and positioned for mechanically mating and electrically connecting to a matching electrical connector on the portable computing device; and a control unit coupled to the plurality of interfaces to provide operative control thereof, wherein, when the portable computing device is connected to the computing platform, the portable computing device takes control of the peripheral interfaces, providing output data over the data interface or the video interface to the output device interface that the control unit directs, and receiving input data from the input device interface over the data interface or the video interface, thereby integrating with the computing platform to form an integrated computing device. 2 Appeal 2017-003060 Application 13/168,666 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chitturi US 6,489,932 B1 Dickie US 2004/0268005 A1 Collopy US 2010/0246119 A1 Dorogusker US 8,041,300 B2 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-12, 14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chitturi and Dickie. Final Act. 3-11. Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chitturi, Dickie, and well-known prior art. Final Act. 11- 12. Dec. 3, 2002 Dec. 30, 2004 Sept. 30, 2010 Oct. 18,2011 Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chitturi, Dickie, and Dorogusker. Final Act. 13-14. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chitturi, Dickie, and Collopy. Final Act. 14-15. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION Appellants contend “[djriving a display controller by ‘equivalent commands’ [as disclosed by Chitturi] is qualitatively different from Applicants’ Claim 1, which recites that the portable computing device provides output data to the output device interface that the control unit directs.” App. Br. 5. 3 Appeal 2017-003060 Application 13/168,666 ANALYSIS Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-21) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-18) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. The Examiner finds the disputed limitation is taught by Chitturi, explaining Chitturi discloses: [CJooperation between the portable computing device 200 and the computing platform is provided via communication interfaces 110 and 210 when the portable computing device 200 is connected to the computing platform. The portable computing device takes control of the peripheral interfaces including at least one of an input device interface for an input device such as keyboard 122 or cursor control device 124, and an output device such as a display of the computing platform; or 1/0 (input/output) peripheral devices 108. When the portable computing unit 200 is connected to the computing platform 100, the portable computing device takes control of the peripheral interfaces, which are controlled by the computing platform including the control unit and device drivers when the portable computing device is not connected to the computing platform, by transmitting by device driver 206 rendering commands (for video data) issued by the processor 202 of the portable computing device to device driver 106 of the computing platform. The device driver 106 causes microcontroller 102 of the computing platform to issue equivalent rendering commands to display controller 112 to cause video content to be displayed on the display 114 of the computing platform. Final Act. 5-6 (emphasis added). Appellants contend: Driving a display controller by “equivalent commands” is qualitatively different from Applicants’ Claim 1, which recites 4 Appeal 2017-003060 Application 13/168,666 that the portable computing device provides output data to the output device interface that the control unit directs. By providing video data to the output device interface directly from the portable computing device, as recited in Applicants’ Claim 1, rather than generating the output data through the “equivalent commands,” the steps of executing the “equivalent commands” are saved. App. Br. 5-6 (emphasis added). The Examiner responds, explaining: The disputed claim language, “the portable computing device takes control of the peripheral interfaces, providing output data over the data interface or the video interface to the output device interface that the control unit directs” is understood in view of page 6, lines 1-3 and page 10, lines 22-32 of Appellants' specification, as the “portable computing device” transmits image data to the control unit 101 (Fig. 5) of the "computing platform" (100, Fig. 5) to be displayed on the touch-sensitive display 110. Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellants respond, arguing “[Chitturi’s] portable computing device sends a message to microcontroller 102, rather than sending output data the output device interface. Thus, Chitturi’s teachings do not meet Claim l’s [disputed limitation].” Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 and, therefore, not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant. . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Id. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, claim 1 neither requires “providing video data to the output device interface directly from the portable computing device” nor without the issuance of “equivalent commands,” e.g., Chutturi’s teaching of 5 Appeal 2017-003060 Application 13/168,666 microcontroller 102 sending commands to display controller 112 to display video content on display 114 of the computing platform. App. Br. 5-6 (emphasis added). That is, there is neither an explicit recitation by claim 1 nor have Appellants’ provided sufficient evidence supporting a definition of the disputed “takes control” language that would require direct control by the portable computing device without any intervening action by or cooperation of the computing platform. Thus, by exercising control over the output device via the microcontroller 102, Chitturi’s portable computing device controls, albeit indirectly, the sending of output data to output device interface and thereby takes control of the peripheral interface and providing output data. See, e.g., Spec. 6:1 (describing the control as a “brain-body relationship.”). Accordingly, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Chitturi teaches or suggests the disputed limitation requiring the portable computing device takes control of the peripheral interfaces, providing output data over the data interface or the video interface to the output device interface that the control unit directs. For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 together with the rejections of dependent claims 2-20 which are not argued separately with particularity. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation