Ex Parte Chou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2015

11164065 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YU-PIN CHOU and HSU-JUNG TUNG
____________________

Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
5, 7–10, 12–14, and 16–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The invention relates to improving transmission quality of a display
system (Spec. ¶ 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A display system for evaluating a transmission quality,
comprising:

a transmitter, comprising:
Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
2

a pattern generator for generating a pattern; and

a data mixer, coupled to the pattern generator, for mixing
a first signal of an image signal and the pattern to produce a
mixed signal;

a wired channel, coupled to the transmitter, for
transferring the mixed signal; and

a receiver, coupled to the wired channel, for receiving the
mixed signal from the transmitter, the receiver comprising:

a demixer for separating the received mixed signal into a
received signal and a received pattern; and

a decision circuit, coupled to the demixer, for
determining the transmission quality according to the received
pattern and the pattern and thereby adjusting a setting value of
the receiver according to the transmission quality and reporting
the transmission quality to the transmitter;

wherein the receiver receives said pattern from the
transmitter via a separate wired channel distinct from the wired
channel;

wherein the transmitter receives the transmission quality
and adjusts a transmission parameter of the transmitter
according to the transmission quality.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Suvanen US 6,633,536 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
Nakagawa
Kobayashi
US 2004/0130467 A1
US 2004/0218625 A1
July 8, 2004
Nov. 4, 2004
Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20–24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi.
Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi and Nakagawa.
Claims 18, 19, and 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Suvanen.

ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend Kobayashi’s “training
transmissions are not mixed with an image signal” (App. Br. 7). Appellants
further contend “Kobayashi does not disclose that a transmission parameter
is adjusted at the transmitter according to a transmission quality determined
by the receiver, as expressly required by claim 1” (id.). We disagree with
Appellants.
Appellants’ first argument regarding Kobayashi’s training
transmissions is not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on the
portion of Kobayashi that discusses sending a training pattern (see
Kobayashi ¶ 87) for disclosing the claim 1 limitation “a data mixer, coupled
to the pattern generator, for mixing a first signal of an image signal and the
pattern to produce a mixed signal.” Rather, the Examiner relies on
Kobayashi’s paragraph 101 for this feature (Ans. 5). Appellants’ Appeal
Brief does not address this portion of Kobayashi, and thus does not persuade
us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kobayashi discloses the argued
“mixing” limitation.
Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
4
Appellants’ second argument regarding the claim 1 limitations “the
receiver comprising . . . a decision circuit . . . for determining the
transmission quality according to the received pattern . . . wherein the
transmitter receives the transmission quality and adjusts a transmission
parameter of the transmitter according to the transmission quality” is also
not persuasive. Appellants’ Appeal Brief does not specifically address
Kobayashi’s paragraphs 101 and 102, which the Examiner relies upon for
this feature (Ans. 6). Kobayashi discloses:
In step 2600, a video signal is received from a video
source. Next, a signal quality test pattern is provided by the
video source associated with the received video signal (step
2602). In step 2604, a determination of a bit error rate is made,
based upon the quality test pattern. Then, a determination is
made of whether the bit error rate is greater than a threshold
value (step 2606).
(Kobayashi ¶ 101).
[I]f the bit error rate is determined to be greater than the
threshold value in step 2606, a determination is made (step
2608) as to whether the bit rate is greater than a minimum bit
rate. If the bit rate is greater than a minimum bit rate, then the
bit rate is lowered (step 2610) and the process returns to step
2606.
(Kobayashi ¶ 102). Accordingly, we find that Kobayashi discloses receiving
a signal quality test pattern from a video source, i.e., the claimed
“transmitter,” determining a bit error rate, i.e., the claimed “transmission
quality,” and then adjusting the bit rate, i.e., the claimed “transmission
parameter” (see id. ¶¶ 101–102). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the bit error rate would be determined by the
receiver of the signal quality test pattern sent from Kobayashi’s video
source, and that the video source would adjust the bit rate according to this
determination. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
5
Kobayashi fails to disclose “a transmission parameter is adjusted at the
transmitter according to a transmission quality determined by the receiver”
(App. Br. 7), particularly absent specific arguments from Appellants with
respect to Kobayashi’s paragraphs 101 and 102. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings that Kobayashi discloses the
argued “transmission quality” limitations.
Although Appellants’ Reply Brief does mention Kobayashi’s
paragraph 101 (see Reply Br. 1), the argument presented—“the signal
quality test pattern of Kobayashi is not generated by a ‘decision circuit,
coupled to [a] demixer,’ (or corresponding circuitry) as required by claim 1”
(id. at 2)—is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a decision circuit for generating a
pattern. Rather, in claim 1 the transmitter comprises a “pattern generator for
generating a pattern,” while the receiver comprises a “decision circuit . . . for
determining the transmission quality according to the received pattern.”
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–14, 16–19, and 23–28 not specifically argued
separately.
Although Appellants argue claims 20–22 separately, the arguments
presented are not persuasive. Regarding claim 20, Appellants’ argument—
“Kobayashi describ[es] training transmissions which are not mixed with an
image signal” (App. Br. 10)—is the same as that presented for claim 1. This
argument is not persuasive as discussed above, and we thus sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Appellants merely repeat the Examiner’s
findings and recite the claim language without specifically explaining why
Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
6
or how the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is incorrect (see App. Br.
11).
With respect to claim 21, the Examiner cites paragraphs 101 and 102
of Kobayashi (Ans. 9) which discloses changing the bit rate of data
transmitted from the video source (Kobayashi ¶¶ 101–102). We agree with
the Examiner that this meets the limitation of changing a characteristic of the
image signal as recited in claim 21 (id. at 9). The Examiner also cites
paragraph 83 of Kobayashi (id. at 5) which discloses that the main link
between the video source and the display device can be a set of twisted pair
wires (Kobayashi ¶ 83; Fig. 16). We agree with the Examiner that this
meets the limitation of “the wired channel” recited in claim 21, with
antecedent basis in claim 1 (id. at 5).
With respect to claim 22, the Examiner also relies (Ans. 9) on
Kobayashi’s changing the bit rate of data transmitted from the video source
(Kobayashi ¶¶ 101–102). We agree with the Examiner and find this meets
the limitation of changing the “frequency” of the image signal as recited in
claim 22 (id.). Absent specific arguments from Appellants to the contrary,
we thus also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–14, and
16–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–10,
12–14, and 16–28 are affirmed.
Appeal 2012-007018
Application 11/164,065
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh