Ex Parte Hinic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2017

13051836 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2017)

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.
13/051,836 03/18/2011 Marco HINIC ARKA001US1 5288
58417 7590 01/12/2017
TTF.TN7. TtRFTHFR PC
EXAMINER
G2 Technology Law
P.O. Box 202858
SHEPARD, JUSTIN E
AUSTIN, TX 78720 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2017 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):
hgrether @ g2techlaw. com
hgrether @ me. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCO HINIC
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,8361
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 7—13. Clams 1—6 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Arkaos SA as the real party in interest. (Br. 4.)
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,836
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a real-time
video data distribution system for the coordinated display of video content
for mixed device video systems employing a plurality of video protocols.
(Abstract.)
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
7. An image data field distribution system comprising:
a server connected wired or wirelessly to a plurality of display
devices with different properties;
where the server initially performs an automated discovery of
the display devices concerning - unique identification numbers,
resolutions available, available parameters, pixel formatting
options, image data compression;
where a plurality of the display devices are individually
assigned zones of the image data field wherein each zones
represent a portion of the image field;
where the server distributes to individual display devices only
the relevant portions of the image data corresponding to the
zones of the image data field to which the display devices are
assigned in a data format determined as appropriate for the
display devices during the server’s automated discovery.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Goodart (US 2009/0289946 Al, pub. Nov. 26,
2009) and Lee (US 2010/0247059 Al, pub. Sept. 30, 2010). (Final Act. U-
6.)
2
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,836
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodart, Lee, and Kambhatla (US 2008/0162725 Al, pub.
July 3, 2008). (Final Act. 6.)
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goodart, Lee, and Westerinen (US 2004/0150581
Al, pub. Aug. 5, 2004). (Final Act. 6—7.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief present the following issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Goodart and Lee teaches or suggests the independent claim 7 limitation, “a
plurality of display devices with different properties.” (Br. 12—13.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Goodart, Lee, and Kambhatla teaches or suggests the additional limitation of
dependent claim 8. (Br. 14.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Goodart, Lee, and Westerinen teaches or suggests the additional
limitations of dependent claims 9 and 13. (Br. 14—15.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments,
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 9, 2015); the Final Office
Action (mailed Apr. 9, 2014); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 3,
2015) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,836
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act.
4—7) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(Ans. 7—10). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Issue One
In finding Goodart and Lee teach or suggest the independent claim
limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Goodart of a
display interface that receives extended display identification data (EDID)
from display devices and generates a video image apportioned so as to be
displayed across the display devices. (Final Act. 4—5; Goodart Abstract, Fig.
2, H 17—21.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Lee of the use of
EDID information. (Final Act. 5; Lee 157—161.)
Appellant argues the Examiner has used improper hindsight in relying
on this combination, and argues Goodart does not teach the use of display
devices “with different properties,” as required by claim 7. (Br. 12—13.)
Appellant’s argument regarding the “different properties” requirement — to
the effect that the claims require “a ragtag collection of different displays
(size shape resolution etc.)” — is not commensurate with the claim
language. (Br. 12.) As the Examiner finds:
[T]he claim only states that “a plurality of display devices with
different properties.” While the display properties could be
shape, size, or resolution, paragraph 30 of the published
specification states that the display properties could be unique
identifications, manufacture, type, name, etc. While Goodart
seems to only teach that the displays are the same resolution
4
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,836
(paragraph 25), it does teach that each of the monitors are
queried for manufacture, type, display size, etc. (paragraph 19).
(Ans. 7—8.) Therefore, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Nor are we persuaded the Examiner has used improper hindsight. We
agree with the Examiner’s finding, “As EDID (Extended Display
Identification Data) is an industry recognized standard, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the EDID details taught by
Lee to the EDID data disclosed by Goodart as they are in the same field and
relate to solving the same problems.” (Ans. 7.) Appellant does not point to
any evidence of record that the combinations would be “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418—19 (2007)). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable
because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Issue Two
Dependent claim 8 requires periodic removal of previously registered
devices which are no longer responding. (Br. 18.) The Examiner relies on
the disclosure in Kambhatla of an audio/video network in which a source
device “continually updates its records to add or remove display addresses
5
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,836
when displays or branch devices are added or removed from the network
topology.” (Final Act. 6; Kambhatla 117.) Appellant argues the Examiner
provides no motivation for combining the references, and no explanation as
to how Goodart would be modified in light of Kambhatla. (Br. 14.) The
Examiner responds that the motivation to add or remove displays is to create
displays of varying size and to reduce the amount of work being done by the
display system, and that any modification of Goodart would be in accord
with well known “garbage collection” techniques. (Ans. 9.) We are not
persuaded the Examiner’s findings of the motivation for and the nature of
the combination are in error. (See Ans. 9.)
Issue Three
Dependent claim 9 requires overlap of displays, and dependent claim
13 requires non-standard aspect ratios. (Br. 18—19.) Appellant’s arguments
regarding the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is unpersuasive as unclear
and conclusory — merely reciting the language of a particular claim and
asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim
limitation, without more, fails to constitute a separate issue of patentability.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Goodart, Lee, and
Westerinen teach or suggest the additional limitations of dependent claims 9
and 13. (Ans. 9—10.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claim 7 over Goodart and Lee, of claim 8 over Goodart, Lee, and
Kambhatla, and of claims 9 and 13 over Goodart, Lee, and Westerinen. We
6
Appeal 2016-001611
Application 13/051,836
also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 10-12 over Goodart and
Lee, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7—13.
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).
AFFIRMED
7