Ex Parte Hardacker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201512471887 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT L. HARDACKER and MARK CHAMPION ____________ Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 10–32, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real parties in interest identified by Appellants are Sony Corp. and Sony Electronics, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants describe the claimed invention as follows: A system for sending multimedia data between a first High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) component and a second HDMl component that is engaged with a displayer of multimedia data includes a first Digital Visual Interface (DVI) component receiving HDCP-encrypted multimedia data from the first HDMI component over a wire. A wireless transmitter sends data from the first DYI component to a wireless receiver, preferably at 60GHz, and the receiver in turn sends the data to a second DVI component. Neither DVI component encrypts or decrypts data. The second DVI component sends the multimedia data to a second HDMI component for decryption and display on, e.g., an LCD or plasma display. See Abstract. Claims 10, 18, 23, and 27 are independent claims. Illustrative Claim Claim 10, which is illustrative, 2 reads as follows: 10. A system for sending multimedia data including audio data and video data between a first High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) component and a second HDMI component engaged with a displayer of multimedia data, the system comprising: a first Digital Visual Interface (DVI) component receiving encrypted HDMI multimedia data from a HDMI transmitter of the first HDMI component, the multimedia data received by the first DVI component being encrypted, the first DVI component being a DVI receiver that processes the 2 Appellants argue claims 10–13, 15–17, 23–29, 31, and 32 in Issue A of the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 6–9. Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 3 received HDMI multimedia data in accordance with DVI protocols; a wireless transmitter receiving encrypted multimedia data from the first DVI component and wirelessly transmitting the encrypted multimedia data to a wireless receiver; and a second DVI component receiving encrypted multimedia data from the wireless receiver, the second DVI component sending the multimedia data to a HDMI receiver of the second HDMI component. References Mano Computer System Architecture 3 rd ed. 1993 Pasqualino ’241 US 2002/0136241 A1 Published Sep. 26, 2002 Nesic US 6,593,895 B2 July 15, 2003 Pasqualino ’873 US 2004/0158873 A1 Published Aug. 12, 2004 Perlman US 2004/0160908 A1 Published Aug. 19, 2004 HDMI Spec. High-Definition Multimedia Interface Specification, Version 1.0 Sep. 4, 2003 Rejections on Appeal 1. Claims 10–13, 15–17, 23–29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqualino ’241, Perlman, Pasqualino ’873, and HDMI Spec. 2. Claims 18 and 22 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqualino ’241 in view of Perlman. 3. Claims 19–21 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqualino ’241, Perlman, Pasqualino ’873, and HDMI Spec. Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 4 4. Claims 14 and 30 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqualino ’241, Perlman, Pasqualino ’873, HDMI Spec., and Nesic. Issues on Appeal Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief 3 and Reply Brief present us with the following issues: 1. Did the Examiner err by using impermissible hindsight in rejecting claim 10 for obviousness based on the combination of Pasqualino ’241, Pasqualino ’873, HDMI Spec., and Perlman? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Pasqualino ’241 teaches or suggests “wherein the DVI components do not decrypt or encrypt the multimedia data,” as recited in dependent claim 12? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of provisional application 60/263,792 (incorporated by reference in Pasqualino ’241) and Mano’s Computer System Architecture teach or suggest “the audio data is multiplexed with a video data stream using the falling edge of a clock signal,” as recited in dependent claim 16? 4. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 18 for obviousness over the combination of Pasqualino ’241and Perlman? 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed on Nov. 10, 2011 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on Mar. 13, 2012 (“Ans.”), Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed on Mar. 27, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), and the original Specification, filed on May 26, 2009 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 5 5. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 23 for obviousness over the combination of Pasqualino ’241, Pasqualino ’873, HDMI Spec., and Perlman? 6. Did the Examiner err in finding Pasqualino ’241 teaches or suggests the limitation “without encrypting or decrypting the data,” as recited in claim 27? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings set forth by the Examiner in the Grounds of Rejection (Ans. 11–23) and the Response to Argument (Ans. 23–28) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we address each of the arguments raised by Appellants. Issue 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 because the finding of obviousness based on the combination of Pasqualino ’241, Pasqualino ’873, HDMI Spec., and Perlman resulted from “impermissible hindsight reconstruction” by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 6–7, Reply Br. 1–5. Appellants assert that “none of the references have been alleged to actually show any combination of DVI components with HDMI components.” See Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellants further assert “none of the references disclose knowledge within the level of ordinary skill of the art of using HDMI and DVI components at both the transmitting and receiving ends.” See Reply Br. 3–4. Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 6 The Examiner finds Pasqualino ’241 discloses the transmission of video from source to sinks that are DVI consumer electronics devices, and Pasqualino ’873, together with provisional application 60/434074, which is incorporated therein by reference, “contemplates transmitting HDMI data over DVI.” See Ans. 24. The Examiner further finds HDMI Spec. “indicates that HDMI source and sinks are backward compatible with DVI sinks and sources respectively such that HDMI source can be coupled to a DVI sink and likewise a DVI source can be coupled to a HDMI sink.” Id. In regard to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, the Examiner explains his rationale for combining the references (see Ans. 27–28) and, citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971), states the following: Applicant must however recognize that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense 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 the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See id. at 27. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and are not persuaded by Appellants’ “impermissible hindsight” argument. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Pasqualino ’873 teaches or suggests transmitting HDMI data over DVI. See id. at 24; Pasqualino ’873 ¶¶ 4 and 5. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in regard to Pasqualino ’873 by equating TDMS with DVI. See Reply Br. 2. In the context of Pasqualino ’873, however, we agree with the Examiner that TDMS is used to refer to DVI. See Pasqualino Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 7 ’873 ¶ 5. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ arguments (see Appeal Br. 6–7, Reply Br. 1–2), we find Pasqualino ’873 teaches or suggests the combination of DVI components with HDMI components as recited in claim 10. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that HDMI Spec. notes a HDMI source comprises an HDMI transmitter and an HDMI Sink comprises an HDMI receiver (see Ans. 12; HDMI Spec. at 8) and that HDMI Spec. also notes that HDMI is compatible with DVI 1.0 (see Ans. 12, 24; HDMI Spec. at 43). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument (see Reply Br. 3–4), we conclude Pasqualino ’873’s teaching of the combination of DVI components with HDMI components and the teachings of HDMI Spec. teach or suggest using an HDMI component and a DVI component at both the transmitting and receiving ends. That is, based on the teachings of Pasqualino ’873 and HDMI Spec., we find a person of ordinary skill in the art combining a HDMI transmitter with a DVI receiver at the transmitting end would have known to use a DVI transmitter with a HDMI receiver at the receiving end. See Ans. 27. We further agree with the Examiner’s findings that Perlman teaches a method of wirelessly transmitting high definition signals from a transmitter to a receiver at high data rates (see Ans. 12; Perlman ¶ 38) and the need to wirelessly provide uncompressed digital video to obtain the best video quality (see Ans. 12; Perlman ¶ 9). Appellants argue Perlman “nowhere mentions ‘HDMI’ so it is hardly suggestive of using wireless in combinations that include HDMI.” Appeal Br. 7. However, the Examiner rejects claim 10 over the combined teachings of Pasqualino ’241, Pasqualino ’873, HDMI Spec., and Perlman, and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 8 nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In regard to Appellants’ “impermissible hindsight argument,” we find no such hindsight. As indicated supra, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claim 10 is based on the prior art references and their teachings to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made. See Ans. 24–25. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the conclusion of the use of hindsight is inevitable “[g]iven that the Examiner’s conclusion does not logically follow from what the Examiner himself indicates the references disclose” (see Reply Br. 4–5). That is, for the reasons stated supra, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of references teach or suggest the use of an HDMI component and a DVI component at both the transmitting and receiving ends of the wireless transmission of high definition signals as taught by Perlman. Consistent with the Examiner’s finding, we conclude the combination of the teachings of Pasqualino ’241, Pasqualino ’873, HDMI Spec., and Perlman is “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)), consistent with common sense. We further find the Examiner provided sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. 418; Ans. 27–28 (e.g, “[the] combination of references used in the rejection of the claims additionally aim to provide video from a source to sink in the highest quality possible by keeping the video in a lossless domain, where video can remain uncompressed”). Furthermore, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 9 Examiner’s combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. TetraPak Cheese and Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, we conclude the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 was not based on impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, for the above reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13–15, and 17, which depend from claim 10. Issue 2 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Pasqualino ’241 teaches or suggests “wherein the DVI components do not decrypt or encrypt the multimedia data,” as recited in dependent claim 12. See Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellants contend the HDCP component of Pasqualino ’241 is integral with the DVI components and “there is no teaching that encrypted data is passed between DVI components untouched with respect to encryption.” Id. at 7–8. The Examiner finds Pasqualino ’241teaches an embodiment in which the HDCP engine can be omitted in the DVI transmitter (see Ans. 25, Pasqualino ’241 at ¶ 44) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized “where the HDCP engine is simply omitted [at] the DVI transmitter . . . ensuring that the HDCP engine is also omitted at the DVI receiver (i.e. the second DVI component).” See Ans. 25. Appellants further contend the embodiment with the HDCP engine Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 10 omitted is irrelevant because independent claim 10 requires encryption. See Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of claim 10, which recites the DVI component “receiving encrypted HDMI multimedia data from a HDMI transmitter of the first HDMI component.” Because claim 10 specifies the first DVI component receives data already encrypted by the first HDMI component, in the embodiment of Pasqualino ’241 in which the HDCP engine is omitted, the data is passed between DVI components untouched with respect to encryption. That is, “the DVI components do not decrypt or encrypt the multimedia data,” as recited in claim 12. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Issue 3 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the art teaches or suggests “the audio data is multiplexed with a video data stream using the falling edge of a clock signal,” as recited in dependent claim 16. See Appeal Br. 8, Reply Br. 5–6. Appellants contend the Examiner failed to show (1) multiplexing audio data with video data and (2) doing so using the falling edge of a clock signal. Id. Regarding (1), the Examiner finds provisional application 60/263,792, which is incorporated by reference in Pasqualino ’241 (see ¶ 1), teaches multiplexing input data at a clock edge. See Ans. 26 (citing Figure 4). Regarding (2), the Examiner finds Mano’s Computer System Architecture, pages 25–26 (3 rd ed. 1993) teaches “it is well known to latch data on active low clock.” See Ans. 26. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Specifically, we agree Figure 4 of Pasqualino ’241 shows digital video and digital audio data assembled or multiplexed for transmission, albeit at the rising edge of a pixel clock. We Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 11 also agree Mano’s Computer System Architecture at pages 25–26 teaches it was known in the art to latch data on either the rising edge or the falling edge of the clock signal. Thus, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention would have known that audio and video data could be multiplexed on the falling edge of a clock signal as recited in claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Appellants argue the rejection of claim 32 “for similar reasons.” See Appeal Br. 8. Thus, for the reasons stated in regard to clam 16, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32. Issue 4 Regarding claim 18, Appellants assert none of the references teach “a second protocol receiver that processes data in a first protocol” and, “as discussed above the wireless link of Perlman is nowhere said to find use as claimed.” See Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner notes that Appellants incorrectly state the portion of the preamble argued and that because the body of the claim does not depend on the correct preamble limitation, it does not carry patentable weight. See Ans. 26–27. In the Reply Br., Appellants correctly quote the preamble of claim 18 and assert it is entitled to patentable weight. See Reply Br. 6–7. We agree with Appellants that the preamble of claim 18 is entitled to patentable weight because limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We note, however, claim 18 is essentially the same as, albeit broader than, claim 10 and parallels claim 10, except for differences in terminology. That is, whereas claim 10 recites, for example, “a first High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 12 component and a second HDMI component,” claim 18 recites a source end component and a receiving end component “processing data in accordance with a [the] first digital communication protocol.” And, whereas claim 10 recites first and second DVI components, claim 18 recites a first component and a second component “processing data in accordance with a [the] second communication protocol.” Appellants have not asserted any contentions regarding claim 18 that were not asserted regarding claim 10. Thus, for the same reasons stated supra regarding claim 10, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Dependent claim 22 is not separately argued, but merely referred to in the title of Issue B in the Appeal Brief at page 9. Dependent claims 19–21 are also not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 9 (Issue C). Thus, for the same reasons regarding claim 18, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19–22. Issue 5 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 23 because “many of the errors above [regarding claim 10] creep into this rejection.” See Appeal Br. 8–9. Independent claim 23 is essentially the same as claim 10 and parallels claim 10, except for differences in terminology. For example, claim 23 recites first and second DVI means, whereas claim 10 recites first and second DVI components. Further, claim 23 recites a HDMI transmitter and a HDMI receiver, while claim 10 recites “a HDMI transmitter of the first HDMI component” and “a HDMI receiver of the second HDMI component.” Appellants have not asserted any contentions regarding claim 23 that were not asserted regarding claim 10. Thus, for the same reasons stated supra regarding claim 10, we sustain the Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 13 Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. Dependent claim 24 is mentioned by Appellants, but not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 9. Dependent claims 25 and 26 are also not separately argued. Accordingly, for the same reasons stated regarding claim 23, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24–26. Issue 6 Appellants contend claim 27 is distinguishable from the cited art because it requires “a DVI component receiving encrypted multimedia data from the wireless receiver and configured for sending the multimedia data . . . to a HDMI receiver of a HDMI component without encrypting or decrypting the data.” See Appeal Br. 9. Appellants rely on their position in regard to claim 12, stating that, in Pasqualino ’241, “as explained above when the data is encrypted the DVI components decrypt it.” Id. As stated supra regarding Issue 2, the Examiner finds Pasqualino ’241 teaches an embodiment in which the HDCP engine can be omitted in the DVI transmitter (see Ans. 25, Pasqualino ’241 at ¶ 44) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized “where the HDCP engine is omitted [at] the DVI transmitter . . . ensuring that the HDCP engine is also omitted at the DVI receiver (i.e. the second DVI component).” See Ans. 25. Similar to claim 10, from which claim 12 depends, claim 27 recites a DVI component “receiving encrypted multimedia data.” And similar to claim 12, claim 27 recites the DVI component receiving and configured for sending the encrypted multimedia data to a HDMI receiver of a HDMI component “without encrypting or decrypting the data.” Thus, for the same reasons stated supra regarding claim 12, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding claim 27. That is, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive Appeal 2012-006899 Application 12/471,887 14 because, in the embodiment of Pasqualino ’241 in which the HDCP engine is omitted, the DVI components receive and transmit encrypted data “without encrypting or decrypting the data,” as recited in claim 27. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28–31, which are not separately argued and depend from claim 27. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10–32 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation