Ex Parte Hochmuth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2010

10004191 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ROLAND M. HOCHMUTH and JOHN MARKS
_____________

Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: February 24, 2010
_______________

Before, JOHN C. MARTIN, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 37-61.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system and method of communicating
graphics image data over a communication network through the use of a
network interface and a graphics adapter comprising a compression unit.
See Spec: 4. Claim 37 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
37. A system for displaying an image, comprising:
a display device communicatively couplable to a
network and adapted to display the image, the display
device comprising:
a display network interface operable to
receive bitmap image data of the image from the
network;
a display frame buffer operable to store the
received bitmap image data; and
a display refresh unit operable to read the
bitmap image data from the display frame buffer
and display and refresh the image at a refresh rate.

1 Claims 1-36 were cancelled in an Amendment After Final, mailed May 23,
2005.
2
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

REFERENCES
Tsuda US 6,044,445 Mar. 28, 2000

Van Ee US 6,466,203 B2 Oct. 15, 2002
(filed Jul. 19, 2000)

Robotham US 6,704,024 B2 Mar. 9, 2004
(filed Nov. 29, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 37-39, 43-45, 50-52, 55, 58, and 61 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Ee in view of Tsuda. Ans.
4-6.
Claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Ee in view of Tsuda and
Robotham. Ans. 6-8.

ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obviousness Rejections
Appellants argue on pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief that the
combination of Van Ee with Tsuda is in error. Appellants argue that there is
no motivation to combine the Van Ee reference with Tsuda. App. Br. 8-9.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: Have Appellants
shown that the Examiner erred in combining Van Ee with Tsuda?

3
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

Rejection of claims 37-39, 43-45, 50-52, 58, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Ee in view of Tsuda
Independent Claims 37, 45, and 52
Appellants argue on pages 5-6 and 9-10 of the Appeal Brief and pages
4-7 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37, 45, and 52
is in error. Appellants selected claim 37 as representative of the group
comprising claims 37, 45, and 52. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that neither
of the references discloses receiving, from the network, bitmap image data.
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions with respect to claims 37, 45, and 52
present us with the issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Van Ee in view of Tsuda discloses or suggests receiving bitmap
image data of the image from the network?
Dependent Claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51
Appellants argue on page 6 of the Appeal Brief and page 7 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51 is
in error. Dependent claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51 depend upon and contain
similar limitations to independent claims 37 and 45. Appellants present the
same arguments discussed above with respect to independent claims 37 and
45. App. Br. 6 and 7. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51 present us with the
same issue as claims 37 and 45.
Claim 55 and 61
Appellants argue on pages 6-7 of the Appeal Brief and page 8 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 55 and 61 is in error.
We select claim 55 as representative of the group since Appellants do not
4
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

separately argue claim 61. Appellants argue that neither of the references
discloses a single-chip display controller. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 8.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: Have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Van Ee in view of
Tsuda discloses or suggests a single-chip display controller?
Claim 58
Appellants argue on pages 7-8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 8-9 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 58 is in error.
Appellants argue that neither of the references discloses receiving graphics
data from a frame buffer of a remote device. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 9.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: Have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Van Ee in view of
Tsuda discloses or suggests receiving graphics data from a frame buffer of a
remote device?
Rejection of claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Ee in view of Tsuda and Robotham
Appellants argue on page 10 of the Appeal Brief and page 9 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-
57, and 59-60 is in error. Appellants argue that these claims are allowable
based upon their dependency on independent claims 37, 45, 52, 55, and 58.
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 9. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to
claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60 present us with the same
issues as claims 37, 45, 52, 55, and 58.

5
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Tsuda
1. Tsuda discloses a method of transferring data over a network from
one device to another. Col. 1, ll. 30-33 and Fig. 1.
2. Image data is transferred over a network by a network interface 13
comprising a buffer 14. Col. 12, ll. 9-19 and Fig. 12.
3. Upon transfer, the image data is received by a network interface 13
and stored in a buffer 14. The data is subsequently processed and
displayed on a display device using an appropriate refresh rate.
Col. 1, ll. 61-65 and col. 12, ll. 23-46 and Fig. 13.
Van Ee
4. Van Ee discloses a handheld device 100 with Internet access. Col.
3, ll. 45-47 and Fig. 1.
5. The device 100 contains a touch screen 104 that allows the user to
retrieve a web page, via a modem 114, and display the graphical
image on an LCD 102. Col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 5 and Fig. 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
6
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated 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 Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the
“improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for
example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter,
smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process
is universal . . . there exists in these situations a motivation to combine
prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the
references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is
whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering
him capable of combining the prior art references.

Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obviousness Rejections
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections. Appellants initially argue that the
combination of Tsuda with Van Ee is not obvious because there is no
motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 8. We disagree.
Van Ee discloses a device that allows a user to display a graphical
image that is received from the Web, via a modem, on an LCD. FF 5.
Tsuda discloses a method of transferring data from one device to another
over a network. FF 1. Tsuda stores image data in a buffer and transfers the
7
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

data to the display device at an appropriate refresh rate. FF 3. Both devices
display an image as a result of receiving data. Therefore, we consider using
Tsuda’s system of refreshing data with Van Ee’s LCD as nothing more than
using a known device to perform its known function of appropriately
displaying an image on a display device. As such, we find that the
combination of Van Ee with Tsuda yields the predictable result of properly
displaying an image.
Further, the Examiner has provided a motivation to combine the
references. Ans. 5. The Examiner stated that the combination of Tsuda with
Van Ee would “ensure the received image is properly displayed on the
display device.” Ans. 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s motivation is
a conclusory statement because neither reference discloses a problem with
displaying an image. App. Br. 9. More particularly, Appellants argue:
[T]he Examiner states, “the display device as taught by Van Ee
is capable of refreshing the image in order to display video
frame by frame,” (Office Action, page 3) (emphasis added). In
combining the teachings of the references, the Examiner further
states, “This is also taught by Tsuda.” (Office Action, page 3)
(emphasis added). However, the Examiner's own statement
appears to indicate that there is no apparent disadvantage/need
present in Van Ee that would generally motivate one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of another
reference with the teachings of Van Ee because Van Ee is
already capable of doing something that the Examiner considers
to be taught by Tsuda.
App. Br. 8. This argument is unconvincing because the Examiner’s position
is that the recited display refresh unit is disclosed in both Van Ee and Tsuda,
and Appellants do not argue that neither reference discloses a display refresh
unit. Furthermore, the ability to combine references does not require that
there be a problem either of the references. Additionally, Appellants have
8
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

not persuaded us that combining a refresh unit with a display unit is
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).

Rejection of claims 37-39, 43-45, 50-52, 58, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Ee in view of Tsuda
Independent Claims 37, 45, and 52
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 37. Claim 37 recites “a display network
interface operable to receive bitmap image data of the image from the
network.” Appellants do not deny that data is received by the handheld
device from the network, but rather argue that the received data is not
“bitmap image data.” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue that the
references “appear” to disclose receiving data in the form of a web page or
streamed video that is processed and converted into a bitmap prior to storing
in the frame buffer. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. Thus, Appellants argue that
the references do not disclose what the claim requires. App. Br. 10; Reply
Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by this argument as it is not commensurate in
scope with the claim. The Examiner finds that neither Appellants’
Specification nor the claim requires that the display network interface
receive bitmap image data directly from the network. Ans. 8. We concur
with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Appellants’ Specification is
consistent with this interpretation since the Specification requires that high-
level instructions are translated into bitmap images prior to rendering an
image. Spec. 5:28-30. Thus, scope of the claim includes receiving data
9
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

from the network that is converted to a bitmap prior to storage in the frame
buffer and does not require that the received data be a bit map image.
As noted above, Appellants do not dispute that Van Ee teaches data is
received from the network, processed, and converted into a bitmap prior to
storage in the frame buffer. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Van Ee discloses the
claimed step of receiving bitmap image data. Accordingly we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 and claims 45 and 52 that are included in
the grouping with claim 37.

Dependent Claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51. Dependent claims 38,
39, 43, and 50-51 depend upon and contain similar limitations discussed
supra with respect to independent claims 37 and 45. Appellants’ arguments
present the same issues discussed with respect to independent claims 37 and
45. App. Br. 6 and 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 38, 39, 43, and 50-51 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claims 37 and 45.
Claim 55 and 61
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 55 and 61. Claim 55 recites “the single-chip
display controller comprises: a network interface . . . and a display refresh
unit.” Claim 61 recites similar limitations. The Examiner has found that the
combination of Van Ee with Tsuda discloses a network interface and a
10
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

display refresh unit, as required by claim 55. Ans. 6. The Examiner admits
that the combination of the two devices onto a single-chip is not explicitly
disclosed in the references. Ans. 6. However, the Examiner also finds that
“it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to integrate the
components of the network interface and the display refresh unit in a single
chip display controller because by doing so, the size of the circuit board can
be reduced and the circuit paths can also be shortened, thereby reducing the
cost while enhancing performance.” Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner has found
that the skilled artisan would recognize that integration of multiple
components on one chip has the advantages over separate components.
Appellants argue that this statement is an unsupported speculation since a
single-chip display controller may cost more or require a larger circuit
board. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 8. We disagree.
Appellants’ statements have not disproved the Examiner’s finding.
Making a product smaller is a technology-independent improvement that
would be universally recognized even if the reference itself does not suggest
the improvement. See Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1368. As a result, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 55 and 61.

Claim 58
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 58. Claim 58 recites “a display network
interface operable to receive graphics image data of the image over the
network from a frame buffer of a remote source device.” Appellants argue
that neither reference discloses receiving the data from a frame buffer of a
11
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

remote device. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 8-9. However, the Examiner finds
that Tsuda teaches this limitation, citing Figures 12 and 13 of Tsuda. Final
Rej. 7; Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner.
Tsuda’s Figure 12 discloses a transferring network interface, which
contains a buffer 14. FF 2. The transferring network interface is equivalent
to the remote source device. Image data is sent from the transferring
network interface to a receiving network interface where it is stored in a
buffer. FF 3. The receiving network interface then processes the data and
displays the image on a display device. FF 3. The receiving network
interface is equivalent to a display network interface. Therefore, Tsuda does
disclose that image data is transferred through a buffer of a remote source
device and received by a buffer of the display network as claimed.
Furthermore, Appellants have not addressed, let alone shown error in, the
Examiner’s reliance on Figures 12 and 13 for a teaching of a frame buffer of
a remote device. As a result, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 58.

Rejection of claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Ee in view of Tsuda and Robotham
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60.
Claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60 ultimately depend upon
claims 37, 45, 52, 55, and 58 (respectively) and as such include the same
limitations discussed supra with respect to claims 37, 45, 52, 55, and 58.
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 9. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
12
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

claims 40-42, 46-49, 53-54, 56-57, and 59-60 for the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claims 37, 45, 52, 55, and 58.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in combining Van
Ee with Tsuda.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Van Ee in view of Tsuda discloses or suggests receiving bitmap image data
of the image from the network.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Van Ee in view of Tsuda discloses or suggests a single-chip display
controller.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Van Ee in view of Tsuda discloses or suggests receiving graphics data from
a frame buffer of a remote device.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 37-61 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).
13
Appeal 2009-003778
Application 10/004,191

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
14