Ex Parte HuaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201411504320 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HAI HUA ____________ Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5-13, 17-21, and 25-28. Claims 2-4, 14-16, and 22-24 have been cancelled previously. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to a video processing device (e.g., Fig. 4, video processing device 125). Representative Claim on Appeal 1. A video processing device that produces a processed video signal for display on a first video display device, the video processing device comprising: a receiving module that produces a video signal from a received signal; a user interface module that selects first settings corresponding to a first video display device based on a user selection of a first compression depth setting for the first video display device from a plurality of available compression depth settings and that selects second settings corresponding to a second video display device based on a user selection of a second compression depth setting for the second video display device from the plurality of available compression depth settings; video record/playback module that includes: a driver interface module that stores a plurality of record settings, the plurality of record settings including the first settings and the second settings; a driver module, coupled to the driver interface module, that encodes the video signal based on the first settings to produce a first processed video signal in a first Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 3 format, and that contemporaneously encodes the video signal based on the second settings to produce a second processed video signal in a second format, wherein the first format is different from the second format; a memory module, coupled to the driver module, for storing a plurality of compressed video files including a first compressed video file that is based on the first processed video signal and including a second compressed video file that is based on the second processed video signal; and a playback module, coupled to the memory module, that produces the processed video signal from the first compressed video file; and a device interface, coupled to the memory module and coupleable to the second video display device, to transfer the second compressed video file to the second video display device. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, 17-19, 21, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2004/0237104 A1, Nov. 25, 2004) and Morishita (US 2002/0009289 A1, Jan. 24, 2002). Ans. 4-7 The Examiner rejected claims 8, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper, Morishita, and Grundstrom (US 2004/0161039 Al, Aug. 19, 2004). Ans. 7-8. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-2), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5-13, 17-21, and 25-28 turns on whether the Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 4 combination of Cooper and Morishita teaches or suggests the following limitation recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 21: a user interface module that selects first settings corresponding to a first video display device based on user selection of a first compression depth setting for the first video display device from a plurality of available compression depth settings and that selects second settings corresponding to a second video display device based on a user selection of a second compression depth setting for the second video display device from the plurality of available compression depth settings Claim 1 (emphasis ours) (hereinafter “first and second video display devices”). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appellant contends the combination of Cooper and Morishita contemplate[s] selecting a recording setting for only one device. Accordingly, the combination of Cooper and Morishita proposed by the Office would result in a system whereby a user would select a format for a particular device (as taught by Cooper) and would select a compression setting for the same device (as taught by Morishita). Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 8. Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 5 The Examiner finds the user would first select the format (handheld or large screen) as taught by Cooper, then the user would select the compression depth setting as taught by Morishita depending on the quality of video the user desires and the amount of disk space the user wishes to use on the recording. Ans. 9-10. In particular, the Examiner finds that Cooper teaches encoding “the signal into two separate formats (handheld and large display)” (Ans. 8 (citing Cooper ¶ 17)), and thus, “discloses an individual setting for multiple devices.” Ans. 9. In other words, Cooper’s teaching of handheld devices and large display devices meets the first and second video display devices limitations. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because all of the features of the structure in the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In that regard, the Supreme Court has indicated that: [It is an error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted). Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 6 Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As such, Morishita would be adjusted to accommodate teachings from Cooper for multiple devices by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, the combination as a whole would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art “that there is a tradeoff that exists between quality and disk space and therefore would recognize the applicability of the teachings of Morishita to the system of Cooper.” Ans. 10. For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 and claims 5-10, 12, 13, 17-20, and 25-28, not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 5-13, 17-21, and 25- 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons discussed above. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5-13, 17-21, and 25-28. 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 Appeal 2012-000800 Application 11/504,320 7 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation