Ex Parte Kwon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2015

11589858 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015)

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.
11/589,858 10/31/2006 Kwang Hun Kwon 8736.062.21 5731
7590 02/12/2015
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
Song K. Jung
1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
PENG, HSIUNGFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________

Ex parte KWANG HUN KWON and SANG HOON CHA
______________

Appeal 2013-001785
Application 11/589,858
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1, 7, 9–11, 15, 19, and 20. Claims
2–6, 8, 12–14, 16–18, and 21–24 have been cancelled. Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2013-001785
Application 11/589,858

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a communication system with Digital
Visual Interface (DVI) ports. Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary with disputed language highlighted:
1. A communication system including a host, a cable card
and a head end in an open cable system, the communication
system comprising:
a plurality of Digital Visual Interface (DVI) ports in the
host; and
a head end that forwards a DVI diagnostic request to the
host, the host including a controller configured to receive the
DVI diagnostic request from the cable card through a central
processing unit (CPU) interface, wherein the CPU interface
enables the DVI diagnostic request including a single
diagnostic identifier for identifying multiple diagnostics for the
plurality of DVI ports to be transferred between a CPU of the
host device and a CPU of the cable card,
wherein the controller is further configured to generate
DVI status information in response to the DVI diagnostic
request, and
wherein the DVI status information including the
multiple diagnostics identified by the same diagnostic identifier
is transmitted to the cable card through the CPU interface.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 9–11, 15, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicants’ Admitted Prior
Art (“AAPA”) in view of Schaller (US 2003/0137934 A1, pub. July 24,
2003). Ans. 2–4.

Appeal 2013-001785
Application 11/589,858

3

ANALYSIS
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
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 5. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend Schaller fails to teach or suggest the “DVI
diagnostic request including a single diagnostic identifier for identifying
multiple diagnostics for the plurality of DVI ports” (hereinafter “disputed
feature”), as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Br. 9–13.
The Examiner cited Schaller (¶¶ 77, 79, 132, 136, and 158, Fig. 5A)
for the disputed feature. Ans. 3, 5. The Examiner finds:
Schaller teaches the operator communicates with FI link
manager by typing in commands to command line interface
(CLI) software operating on a terminal. The command is
converted into a message which is sent to FI link manager
reporting errors to the operator to terminal via messages (e.g.,
see FIG.5A; Para 77). The FI link manager then is able to
access to a FI link table 502 identifies which FI ports are
assigned and tracks the operational status of FI ports (e.g., see
FIG.5A; Para 79; Para 132; Para 158). Schaller further
discloses errors causing a problem status report may include a
loss of signal, the signal being out of sync, persistent decoding
errors, persistent parity errors or persistent CRC errors (e.g., see
Para 136).
Id. at 5.
The Examiner thus concludes, and we agree, “‘sending a message via
the terminal to the FI link manager to collect aggregated status report for
multiple ports’ as taught by Schaller can be reasonably interpreted as a
Appeal 2013-001785
Application 11/589,858

4

single request/the command for diagnostic status reports of multiple ports.”
Id. The Examiner also finds:
It is also noted that in Schaller, the terminal, FI port
300F, FI port 400S and subsequent ports connected to FI port
400(S) are connected in series. Therefore, when terminal sends
a single request for diagnostics reports to FI port 400 S or the
other ports subsequently connected with the FI port 400S to
request diagnostic report and the FI port 400S or the
subsequently connected ports, the diagnostic reports must
comprises information of FI port 400S (or subsequently port)
and also information of FI port 300(F). For example, if FI port
300F is inactive/not working, subsequent ports connected to FI
port 300(F) cannot send diagnostic reports for other ports to the
terminal.
Id. (emphasis ours).
We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings
including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments about the
disputed feature. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence
or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 and 11, and claims 7, 9, 10, 15, 19, and 20, not argued
separately.
DECISION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 7, 9–11, 15, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of
Schaller.
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).
Appeal 2013-001785
Application 11/589,858

5

AFFIRMED

msc