Ex Parte Fegesh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2004

08876450 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

Paper No. 22

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte HENRIK FEGESH
__________

Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before SCHAFER, LEE and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1-6, which are all of the pending claims of
this application.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
The appellant has indicated (Brief, page 3) that, for the
purposes of this appeal, claims 2, 4, and 6 will stand or fall
together with claim 1, while claims 3 and 5 stand apart. Claims
1, 3, and 5 (with any intervening claims) read as follow:
1. An arrangement for producing television contributions in
a studio or in a mobile unit, comprising:
at least one picture signal source; devices for processing
the picture signals; and outputs for the processed picture
signals,
characterized in that the arrangement further comprises:
a central operation unit for accommodating the individual
Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

2
picture signal-processing devices as independent units; and
a controllable switching device having outputs connected to
the inputs of the picture signal-processing devices, and having
inputs connected to the outputs of the picture signal-processing
devices enabling free allocation of the picture signal-processing
devices to the at least one picture signal source and to the
outputs of the arrangement.

3. An arrangement as claimed in claim 1, characterized in
that controllable switching device comprises a computer-controlled
crossbar having outputs and inputs to which the inputs and
outputs, respectively, of the picture signal-processing devices
are connected.

4. An arrangement as claimed in claim 1, characterized in
that [the] central operation unit comprises a production box
arranged centrally in a studio or mobile unit, the picture signal-
processing devices and the controllable switching device being
accommodated in said production box.

5. An arrangement as claimed in claim 4, characterized in
that the picture signal-processing devices are implemented as
fixedly wired slide-in units which are slidable into the
production box and are connectable to the controllable switching
device via slide-in contacts or software modules.

The References
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and 35 U.S.C.
§103(a), the examiner relies upon the following references:
Ritter et al. (Ritter) 5,001,473 Mar. 19, 1991
Esch et al. (Esch) 5,099,319 Mar. 24, 1992
Drako et al. (Drako) 5,446,866 Aug. 29, 1995
The Rejections
Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Esch.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Esch in view of Drako.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

3
unpatentable over Esch.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Esch in view of Ritter.
The Invention
The invention relates to an arrangement for producing
television contributions in a studio or in a mobile unit from a
plurality of simultaneously available signal sources utilizing at
least one picture signal source, devices for processing the
picture signals, and outputs for the processed picture signals.
(Specification, page 1, lines 2-8). Further details of the
claimed invention are recited in claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 reproduced
above.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 4 Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
The examiner has found that Esch discloses at least one
picture signal source, outputs for the processed signals, a
central operating unit, and a controllable switching device having
outputs connected to the inputs of the picture signal processing
devices and having inputs connected to the outputs of the signal
processing devices (Page 4, lines 1-7).
The appellant urges that “[n]owhere within the four corners
of Esch can this inventive configuration be found or suggested”
(Appeal Brief, page 4, lines 9-11).
Claim 1 requires a central operation unit for accommodating
the individual picture signal-processing devices as independent
units; and a controllable switching device having outputs
connected to the inputs of the picture signal-processing devices
enabling free allocation of the picture signal-processing devices
to the at least one picture signal source and having inputs
connected to the outputs of the picture signal processing device.
Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

4

The examiner contends that claim 1 requires no routing of any
signals from the output of 118 to the input of 118. Rather, it is
urged, that claim 1 only requires that the outputs and inputs are
connected. The examiner is of the opinion that the outputs 118 of
figure 5 of Esch meet the claim limitation because they are
connected to the outputs of 111. This “physical” connection is
said to be sufficient to meet the claim limitations (Examiner’s
Answer, page 4, lines 8-17).
We disagree. Claim 1 requires a controllable switching
device both upstream and downstream of the signal processing
device (i.e., having outputs connected to the inputs of the
picture signal processing devices, and having inputs connected to
the output of the picture signal processing device), in order that
they may be accommodated as independent units. This requires the
ability to switch from sources and to use output signals from
processing devices as potential input sources.
The examiner’s interpretation, that simply because one can
trace the circuit back from the outputs to the inputs means that
they are “connected” fails to give the claim terms their ordinary
meanings. Where the claim recites connected to an input or an
output, their ordinary meaning is a direct connection enabling the
function recited within the claim body.
Apparently, according to the examiner (Answer at 4, lines 9-
12), in Esch the outputs of the matrix switch 118 is connected to
the inputs of various processors 111-117 because there is a
physical connection between the output of each processor and the
output of the matrix switch 118. That view erroneously treats the
output of processors 111-117 the same as the input of those
Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

5
processors.
To the extent the examiner regards anything connected to a
device's output as necessarily connected to the device's input
through the device itself, it is erroneous where, as here, the
connection is for the purpose of making it possible to provide
signals to the input of the device.
Similarly, for the purpose of providing a capability to
switch or direct signals, the output of matrix switch 118 cannot
be deemed connected to the output of processors 111-117 simply
because the output of processors 111-117 are applied as inputs to
the matrix switch 118. The examiner evidently has ignored the
requirement of "enabling free allocation of the picture signal-
processing devices to the at least one picture signal source and
to the outputs of the arrangement.
As a consequence, we determine that the examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation and
shall reverse this rejection.
However, we observe in passing that it appears to us the Esch
description may nonetheless still render the claimed subject
matter anticipated or obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) and 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The communications processor 103
is connected to a multitude of signal sources (see, e.g. Esch,
Fig. 5, and column 7, lines 45-50). The signal sources are
capable of being switched from one processor to another (Fig 5,
reference numeral 105 can feed either video processor 111 or 112).
The communications processor 103 controls the control processor
109, which in turn controls the downstream matrix switch processor
117 and matrix switch 118.
Thus, considering the communications processor, control
Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

6
processor, and matrix switch processor to be the “central
operating unit,” it appears that all the claim limitations may be
found within the description of Esch. If, to some extent, the
signal sources upstream are not be switched by a matrix switch
(see, e.g. reference numeral 105 feeding processors 111 and/or
112, or other signal sources hooked back into the communications
processor), it appears that such switching under the control of
the communications processor would have been obvious; especially
in view of the identical matrix switching arrangement made
downstream, thereby giving maximum flexibility between signal
sources and processors.
We decline to exercise our authority under 37 CFR 1.136(b),
as this interpretation of Esch has not before been raised, and
would benefit from further investigation by the examiner and the
appellant and additional prosecution. The examiner and appellants
should address this reading of Esch in view of the language of the
claims as interpreted above.
The Rejection of Claim 3 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Esch in view of Drako;
The Rejection of Claim 5 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Esch;
and
The Rejection of Claim 6 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Esch in view of Ritter
Although not expressly stated by the examiner, each of these
rejections is founded on the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b), which we have reversed above. Consequently, these
rejections are likewise reversed for the reasons stated before.

Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

7
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
over Esch is reversed.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Esch in
view of Drako is reversed.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Esch is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Esch in
view of Ritter is reversed.

REVERSED

RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450

8
THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING, INC.
PATENT OPERATIONS
PO BOX 5312
PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5312