Ex Parte HoltDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201311189534 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TIMOTHY M. HOLT ____________________ Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Timothy M. Holt (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Toyoda (US 2004/0072608 A1; pub. Apr. 15, 2004), Luciano (US 6,641,483 B1; iss. Nov. 4, 2003), and Dehlin (US 2005/0259845 A; pub. Nov. 24, 2005). App. Br. 3 and Reply Br. 1.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are related to “a display system that includes a display that incorporates a plurality of private viewing areas viewable only from associated viewing positions and a community viewing area viewable from all viewing positions.” Spec. 1:28-30. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display system comprising: an electronic flat panel display capable of electronically displaying graphics, the display either being a single unit or a plurality of contiguously positioned units, the display having a community viewing region and a plurality of designated private viewing regions, the private viewing regions defined by a plurality of light control film assemblies which limit viewing angles 1 The Examiner objects to claim 4 as being of improper dependent form. Ans. 3. The Appellant “wishes to avoid any unnecessary delay in the appeal proceedings, and because [an amendment to claim 4] would likely be treated as a request to reopen prosecution and to withdraw the appeal, causing significant delay.” Reply Br. 3. The Appellant correctly states that “claim objections may be reviewed only by way of petition to the Director of the USPTO, rather than being subject to review by the Board.” Id. Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 3 to that of associated viewing positions, and the community viewing region is viewable from all viewing positions; and a touch sensitive input device overlaying at least a portion of the display to provide for user interaction with the display system. ANALYSIS Claim 1 requires “the display either being a single unit or a plurality of contiguously positioned units.” App. Br., Claims App’x. For an electronic flat panel display being a plurality of contiguously positioned units, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that “Toyoda teaches a game machine whose display portion comprises an electronic flat panel display that includes a plurality of display system[s] for use in a gaming machine where the plurality of video screens operates as a single unit to provide a player with a community viewing region (see element [30] and [51] of Fig. 1 and the related description thereof) (i.e: the dealer) and a plurality of private viewing regions.” Ans. 4. The Examiner states that While the plurality of electronic display panels in Toyoda are capable of electronically displaying graphics it does not specifically teach an embodiment where the units are a plurality of contiguously positioned units. However, it is well known in the display arts that multiple screen panels may be placed in an adjacent position with respect to one another to form a contiguous display to appear as one display unit or as provided in the system of Toyoda the entire system forms one continguous [sic] display unit that provides a unique experience to the user and are contiguous in the fact that the cabinet and structure of the device provide the simulated appearance that the different screens are one display unit. Id. Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 4 The Examiner also takes Official Notice that “a plurality of contiguous[ly] positioned units would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate such a feature that was well known in order to produce the large displays of Toyoda (see US 2002/0065132 AI, US 2003/0171142 AI).” Id. at 4-5. Furthermore, the Examiner alternatively concludes that “it would have been a simple matter of DESIGN CHOICE as arranging screens in a fashion so that they are adjacent to each other produces only aesthetic differences in arrangement of the device but does not [a]ffect the technological function of the gaming device.” Id. at 5. The Appellant argues that “the Examiner incorrectly assesses the scope and content of at least Toyoda, and/or incorrectly interprets the claim feature ‘an electronic flat panel display’.” App. Br. 7. In particular, for claims 1 and 4-6, the Appellant argues that “no person skilled in the art would say that the entire apparatus shown in Toyoda’s FIG. 1 constitutes ‘an electronic flat panel display capable of electronically displaying graphics’” and that “the basis of the Examiner’s rejection for all claims is that Toyoda’s monitor screens 51 are private viewing panels for the whole apparatus shown in Toyoda FIG. 1,” thus, “there can be no prima facie rejection under § 103 because Toyoda is relied on for a teaching it does not include.” Id. at 8; see also Reply Br. 3-4. The Appellant further argues that “[n]o person skilled in the art would equate ‘contiguous’ display units with display units that are ‘connected via a gaming system’.” Reply Br. 5. The Appellant further contends that “if a reference teaches a plurality of units, those units can be said to fall within the quoted language only if (1) the units are contiguously positioned, and (2) the contiguously positioned units Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 5 collectively constitute a single electronic flat panel display.” Id. at 6. The Appellant asserts that Toyoda and Luciano do not teach contiguous displays, “do not operate as a single electronic display unit, and they do not constitute a single electronic flat panel display as specified by the language of claim 1.” Id. at 7. The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, although the Examiner states that the “entire system [of Toyoda] forms one contiguous display unit” (Ans. 4), the Examiner also states that Toyoda “does not specifically teach an embodiment where the units are a plurality of contiguously positioned units.” Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner takes Official Notice that incorporating such contiguously positioned units was well known in order to produce large displays. See Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also alternatively concludes such an arrangement is a matter of design choice. See Ans. 5. The Appellant does not traverse the Examiner’s Official Notice, does not dispute that contiguously positioned units are known in the art, and does not provide arguments against the Examiner’s alternative design-choice rationale. Also, the Appellant’s argument that Toyoda and Luciano do not teach contiguous displays operated as a single unit is not persuasive. Claim 1 requires an electronic flat panel display capable of electronically displaying graphics and having a community viewing region and private viewing regions, but does not further require that the contiguously positioned units operate as a single unit. See App. Br., Claims App’x. Moreover, the Examiner finds that “Toyoda teaches . . . the plurality of video screens operates as a single unit to provide a player with a community viewing Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 6 region . . . and a plurality of private viewing regions.” Ans. 4; see also Toyoda, para. [0115] and fig. 12. Claim 1 also recites the “electronic flat panel display . . . being a single unit.” App. Br., Claims App’x. For an electronic flat panel display being a single unit, the Examiner finds that “Toyoda is silent with respect to producing a community viewing region and a public viewing region on a single display panel.” Ans. 5. The Examiner cites Luciano as teaching “a light control film to limit the viewing angles of the private displays.” Id. However, the Examiner finds that “Toyoda in combination with Luciano is silent with respect to a single display panel unit that is able to provide both a community viewing region as well as a private viewing region on a display screen.” Id. at 6. The Examiner determines that “Dehlin teaches a gaming display device/table (see Fig. 3 and the related description thereof) that incorporates on a singular display a private information and private information area to be used to play a game (see paragraph [0005], [0008- 0012]).” Id.; see also id. at 8. The Examiner states that “[o]ne would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Dehlin to provide on the same display the ability for specific game information to be kept from different players (see paragraph [0018], [0053-0061])” and concludes that “it would have been obvious . . . to incorporate the features of Dehlin with that of Toyoda and Lucian[o] to provide a gaming display system that incorporate private and community viewing regions on an electronic display.” Id. The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “proffered rationale . . . does not constitute sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning that is required for an obviousness rejection under § 103.” App. Br. 9. In particular, the Appellant argues that “displays 51 and the large display [of Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 7 Toyoda] do not together constitute ‘an electronic flat panel display’ as claimed” and that “displays 38 and 41 [of Luciano] do not together constitute ‘an electronic flat panel display’ as claimed.” App. Br. 10, 11. The Appellant thus argues that “to incorporate the features of Dehlin to provide a gaming system that incorporates private and community viewing regions on an electronic display . . . in order ‘to provide on the same display the ability for specific game information to be kept from different player’ . . . is circular; the suggested modification accomplishes no purpose because it is redundant; and the suggested modification would not have occurred to the person of ordinary skill in view of the significant design differences between the Toyoda/Luciano modified system and the system of Dehlin.” App. Br. 11-12; see also id. at 12-14. The Appellant also argues that “the suggested modification would not have occurred to the person of ordinary skill in view of the significant design differences between the Toyoda/Luciano modified system and the system of Dehlin” because “the system of Toyoda as modified by Luciano would still have the large display (with the dealer) oriented generally vertically, and the users would still sit on their respective stools generally in front of the large display” which “would have caused one of ordinary skill to dismiss the proposed combination” because “[f]or example, one would not place Dehlin’s view restrictor or view revealer on a vertically oriented display as in the Toyoda/Luciano modified system, since the restrictor or revealer would fall off.” App. Br. 14. The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Toyoda, Luciano, and Dehlin disclose community viewing regions and private viewing regions. See Ans. 4, 5, 6. The Examiner also finds that Dehlin teaches incorporating such regions on a singular display. See id. at 6 Appeal 2011-007268 Application 11/189,534 8 and 8. Furthermore, the Examiner’s proposed combination of Toyoda, Luciano, and Dehlin does not include incorporating Dehlin’s view restrictor or view revealer. See id. at 6 and 8. Thus, the cited references provide explicit teachings and motivation for the Examiner’s proposed combination. Moreover, “a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” and a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-421 (2007). The Appellant does not explain why the skilled artisan cannot combine the community viewing regions and private viewing regions of Toyoda with the light control film of Luciano to limit viewing angles of private displays on a singular display as taught by Dehlin. See Ans. 3-6. For the reasons supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Appellant does not provide separate arguments for claims 4-6, which depend from claim 1. App. Br. 7-14 and Reply Br. 3-8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Toyoda, Luciano, and Dehlin. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4-6 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 Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation