Ex Parte LeeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 201613709728 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131709,728 12/10/2012 23373 7590 05/10/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Da-young LEE 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Ql30764 5371 EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2016 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DA-YOUNG LEE Appeal2014-006370 Application 13/709,728 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-006370 Application 13/709,728 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a display apparatus for, when a multi-view mode start command is input, displaying other content to be selected by a user by generating a sub-screen in a display screen so that the user can simultaneously check a plurality of contents to select and view the image without interruption, and a multi-view providing method using the same. Spec. i-f 7. 2 Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows (with disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A display apparatus comprising: a signal processing unit for processing a first content and a second content; a display screen for displaying the first content and the second content; a user command input unit for inputting a multi-view mode start command to operate the display apparatus in a multi- view mode; and a control unit operable to enable the second content to be selected in a sub-screen of the display screen while the first content is being viewed, and after the second content is selected via the sub-screen, the control unit is operable in the multi-view 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed July 12, 2013 ("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed Jan. 13, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 10, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed May 5, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and, the Clean Substitute Specification filed Dec. 10, 2012 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2014-006370 Application 13/709,728 mode to display the first content to appear over a full area of the display screen while concurrently displaying the second content to appear over the same full area of the display screen. App. Br. 9 (Claims App.). References Lee US 2006/0227247 Al Oct. 12, 2006 Ahn US 2011/0119611 Al May 19, 2011 Unkel US 2012/0026157 Al Feb.2,2012 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1---6, 8-16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Unkel and Ahn. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Unkel, Ahn, and Lee. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments in the Briefs and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless otherwise noted, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4--16), and in the Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 16-19), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs. Appellant contends none of the cited references teach or suggest a control unit "operable to enable the second content to be selected in a sub- screen of the display screen while the first content is being viewed, and after 3 Appeal2014-006370 Application 13/709,728 the second content is selected via the sub-screen, the control unit is operable in the multi-view mode to display the first content to appear over a full area of the display screen while concurrently displaying the second content to appear over the same full area of the display screen," as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claim 12. App. Br. 5. Appellant argues Ahn fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations, and that Unkel and Lee fail to remedy this deficiency. Id. at 7; Reply Br. 4--7. Appellant argues Ahn fails to teach or suggest any connection between the frame-by- frame display method for 3D images and the simultaneous display of two images from two different channels. Id. at 5-7. Appellant also argues there is no teaching or suggestion in any of the cited references "that a left image and a right image of the same program would be received from different channels or different sources." Id. at 6. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. First, Appellant's arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. Appellant's arguments are directed to Ahn individually, but the Examiner's rejection is based on the combined teachings ofUnkel and Ahn. See Final Act 5-8. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). Here, Appellant argues, for example, that Ahn does not teach or suggest concurrently displaying the first and second content to appear over the same full area of a display screen where the first and second content 4 Appeal2014-006370 Application 13/709,728 have been selected based on the second content being displayed and selected from a sub-screen (see Reply Br. 4), but the Examiner relies on Unkel as teaching or suggesting the control unit "is operable in the multi-view mode to display the first content to appear over a full area of the display screen while concurrently displaying the second content to appear over the same full area of the display screen," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6 (citing Unkel Figure 7, i-fi-194--95). Appellant is, therefore, incorrect in arguing "the Examiner acknowledges that Unkel does not teach or suggest displaying both first and second content over the same full area of a display." See Reply Br. 5. Appellant is also incorrect in arguing that, to achieve the disputed feature, the Examiner combines the thumbnail drag and drop operations of paragraphs 149-152 of Ahn "with the frame-by-frame method of [O 168] of Ahn, which is specifically described with respect to left and right images of a 3D image." See id. at 6. As the Examiner states, "Ahn was cited only for teaching the display of a second content that can be selected from a sub-screen." Ans. 19; see also Final Act. 7 (citing Ahn i-fi-1 101, 149, 151-152). Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings and suggestions of Unkel and Ahn. Thus, we agree with these findings and adopt them as our own. Second, Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348(CCPA1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). For example, Appellant argues "Ahn fails to teach or suggest any connection between the frame-by-frame display method for 3D images and the 5 Appeal2014-006370 Application 13/709,728 simultaneous display of two images from two different channels" (App. Br. 5), but as the Examiner finds, "the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. two images from two different channels) are not recited in the rejected claim(s)." Ans. 16-17. Similarly, Appellant's argument that there is no teaching in the art "that a left and a right image of the same program would be received from different channels or different sources" (App. Br. 6) is unconvincing because as the Examiner finds, "the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a left image and a right image of the same program would be received from different channels or different sources) are not recited in ... claims 1 and 12." Ans. 17-18. Thus, based on this record, we do not find error ( 1) in the Examiner's findings that the combination of Unkel and Ahn teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 12 or (2) in the Examiner's conclusion that the combination ofUnkel and Ahn renders claims 1 and 12 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1and12, as well as claims 2-11and13-21, which variously depend therefrom and are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 under 3 5 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation