Ex Parte Desch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2014

11725869 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014)

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.
11/725,869 03/20/2007 David Alan Desch P162D2 7245
8791 7590 12/22/2014
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
LEE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID ALAN DESCH
____________________

Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
38–59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s “invention relates to a system and method for providing
digital video and audio broadcasts.” (Spec. 1:2–3.) Claim 38 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
38. A method for a display monitor, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of digital audio-video programs
having differing source formats, the plurality of digital audio-
video programs being at least two of the following: (i) a digital
bit stream from an antenna, (ii) a digital data from a cable
programming station, and (iii) a digital information from a
programming station;
multiplexing the plurality of digital audio-video
programs of the differing source formats into a single digital
data stream for the display monitor to display; and
simultaneously displaying on the display monitor two or
more of the plurality of digital audio-video programs of
differing source formats.

REJECTIONS
Claims 38, 40–48, and 50–59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dean (US 5,914,757; June 22, 1999), Lee (US
6,104,860; Aug. 15, 2000), and Cooper (US 5,489,947; Feb. 6, 1996).
Claims 39 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dean, Lee, Cooper, and Young (US 5,532,754; July 2,
1996).
ISSUES
(1) Independent claim 38 recites “receiving a plurality of digital
audio-video programs having differing source formats, the plurality of
digital audio-video programs being at least two of the following: (i) a digital
Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869

3
bit stream from an antenna, (ii) a digital data from a cable programming
station, and (iii) a digital information from a programming station.” (App.
Br. 16 (emphases added).) Independent claims 47 and 57 recite similar
limitations. (See id. at 18, 19–20.) Did the Examiner erroneously conclude
a combination of Dean, Lee, and Cooper suggests these limitations?
(2) Did the Examiner erroneously conclude a combination of Dean,
Lee, Cooper and Young suggests the “digital audio-video programs” recited
in claims 39 and 49?
ANALYSIS
Claims 38, 47, and 57
Appellant acknowledges Dean discloses two input digital bit streams
but contends Dean does not teach or suggest these bit streams have
“differing source formats” or include two of the claimed types of digital
data. (See, e.g., App. Br. 10–12 (emphasis omitted).) Appellant argues
neither Lee nor Cooper remedies the latter deficiency because “if both Lee
and Cooper [disclose] digital bitstreams[] as alleged then Lee and Cooper
also fail to disclose the plurality of digital audio-video programs . . . being at
least two” of the claimed digital data types. (Id. at 13 (emphases omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).) Moreover, according to Appellant, even
if Lee and Cooper suggest two of the claimed data types, the Examiner
improperly used hindsight to combine the teachings of the cited art in the
claimed manner because Dean’s inputs “are both digital bitstreams and there
is no mention in Dean of receiving digital satellite signals, let alone at
[Dean’s] inputs to be simultaneously displayed on the display monitor.” (Id.
(emphasis omitted) (internal reference numbers omitted).)
Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869

4
We disagree. The Examiner found Dean discloses “[s]ources of video
information include conventional television signals . . . advanced digital
televisions such as ATV and HDTV; computer graphics and animations; and
others. Each of these sources have different characteristics . . . .” (Dean
col. 1, ll. 18–23 (emphasis added); Ans. 9.) The Examiner determined it was
well-known in the art that ATV, HDTV, and computer graphics are digital
audio-video signals and found these signals are different from one another.
(See Ans. 9–10.) The Examiner reasoned that “based on [Dean’s] teachings
and logical deductions” Dean suggests these signals would serve as inputs to
Dean’s video system. (See id. at 9–11.) Accordingly, the Examiner found
Dean suggested “receiving a plurality of digital audio-video programs
having differing source formats.” (See id. at 4, 9–11.)
Appellant has not persuaded us these findings are erroneous. As Dean
explicitly states, ATV, HDTV, and computer graphics “have different
characteristics” (Dean col. 1, ll. 21–23); therefore, these signals are
“differing source formats.” Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s
finding that ATV, HDTV, and computer graphics are digital audio-video
signals, and in any event, Dean indicates ATV and HDTV are digital signals.
(See, e.g., id. at col. 1, ll. 18–21 (“Sources of video information include
conventional television signals . . . advanced digital televisions such as ATV
and HDTV . . . .”) (emphasis added).) Dean teaches the disclosed invention
“addresses the synchronization of alternative sources of video to a video
display[] . . . . Display devices must be capable of displaying a variety of
video formats, and of displaying multiple video images simultaneously.”
(Id. col. 1, ll. 7–11 (emphases added).) Dean goes on to (1) describe various
known video formats (including the digital audio-video signals noted
Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869

5
above), (2) list several problems prior art systems encounter when
simultaneously displaying different video formats, (3) state that an object of
the disclosed invention is to overcome some of these problems, and (4)
describe an embodiment of the disclosed invention that includes input digital
bit streams that “may each have a different format.” (See id. at col. 1, l. 18 –
col. 3, l. 59; col. 10, ll. 20–46; Fig. 4.) In light of this, we agree with the
Examiner that “based on [Dean’s] teachings and logical deductions” Dean
suggests “receiving a plurality of digital audio-video programs having
differing source formats.”
Regarding Lee and Cooper, Appellant’s contention that Lee and
Cooper simply teach “digital bitstreams as alleged” ignores the Examiner’s
finding regarding the type of digital data Lee and Cooper respectively teach:
namely, digital cable signals and digital satellite antennae signals. (See
Ans. 5, 12.) Appellant’s contention does not demonstrate this finding is
erroneous.
As for Appellant’s argument that the Examiner improperly relied on
hindsight because Dean’s inputs “are both digital bitstreams and there is no
mention in Dean of receiving digital satellite signals,” (App. Br. at 13
(emphasis omitted)), the Examiner was not required to “seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim”
when determining “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Instead, the Examiner could—and did—“take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” Id. The Examiner found Dean’s input sources receive
digital television signals, and Lee and Cooper respectively teach types of
Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869

6
digital television signals (i.e., digital cable signals and digital satellite
antennae signals). (See Ans. 5, 11–12.) Given these teachings, the
Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to combine Cooper, Lee,
and Dean in the claimed manner “so that digital cable and digital satellite
signals could be displayed on the monitor.” (See Ans. 5, 12.) Appellant’s
cursory assertion has not persuaded us this conclusion improperly rests on
hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)
(explaining an obviousness determination is “necessarily a reconstruction
based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper”).
Claims 39 and 49
Appellant argues neither Dean, Lee, Cooper, nor Young teaches or
suggests the “digital audio-video programs” recited in the claims and
therefore the Examiner also erroneously rejected claims 39 and 49. (See
App. Br. 14.) But, as explained above, the Examiner found the combination
of Dean, Lee and Cooper suggests this limitation, and Appellant has not
persuaded us this finding is erroneous.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 38, 39, 47,
49, and 57. Because Appellant argued the remaining claims together with
claims 38, 47, and 57, (see id. at 13), we also sustain the rejections of the
remaining claims.

Appeal 2012-010323
Application 11/725,869

7
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 38–59.
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

ELD