Ex Parte Lejeune

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2015

12009818 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
12/009,818 01/22/2008 Stephane Lejeune 80398P681 5848
102824 7590 09/21/2015
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP
162 N. WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
EXAMINER
BYCER, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2015 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 STEPHANE LEJEUNE
____________________

Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to multiple focus control. Abst. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
l. An apparatus comprising:
first and second focus managers to manage first and
second focus owners, respectively, the first and second focus
owners corresponding to components of media planes
displayable on at least one of a plurality of output display
devices, the first and second focus managers associating first
and second key events generated by first and second input
devices, respectively, to the respective first and second focus
owners; and
a hardware router coupled to the first and second focus
managers, the router having a routing table that stores
information of association (i) between first connection and the
first focus manager and (ii) between the second connection and
the second focus manager, the router routing one of the first and
second key events originating from the first and second
connections, respectively, to a corresponding focus manager
using the information of association stored in the routing table.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Humpleman
Sekiguchi
Carpenter
US 5,940,387
US 6,957,275 B1
US 7,620,901 B2
Aug. 17, 1999
Oct. 18, 2005
Nov. 17, 2009

Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
3
Bob O’Donnell, HDMI: The Digital Display Link, Silicon Image
1–21 (December 2006) (hereinafter “Silicon Image”).

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–7, 10–18, and 21–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi, Carpenter, and Humpleman.
Final Act. 3–15.
Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sekiguchi, Humpleman, Carpenter, and Silicon
Image. Final Act. 15–17.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1) In connection with independent claim 1:
a) Sekiguichi’s “IP address management table merely associates IP
addresses, IDs and attributes to a given device” instead of storing the
information required by claim 1 including “information of association
(i) between first connection and the first focus manager and (ii)

1 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–7, 10–18, and 21–33
collectively. Appellant does the same for claims 8, 9, 19, and 20. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 2–7 and 9–33. “A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Further, merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument,
previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for
separate patentability of the two claims. Therefore, based on Appellant’s
arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–7, 10–18, and 21–33 based on
claim 1 alone, and the appeal of claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 based on claim 8
alone.
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
4
between the second connection and the second focus manager.” App.
Br. 13.2
b) Carpenter associates (i) a user input location on a touch screen or a
particular input device with (ii) an application, not (i) first and second
key events generated by first and second input devices to (ii)
respective first and second focus owners corresponding to components
of media planes displayable on one or more output display devices as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 15–16.
2) In connection with claim 8, in addition to the arguments presented in
connection with claim 1:
a) The applied combination of references is improper because
[M]odifying Sekiguchi, Humpleman, and Carpenter to incorporate the
HDMI standard [of Silicon Image] would render the Sekiguchi,
Humpleman, and Carpenter technique unworkable because the NIU s
(interpreted by the Examiner as focus managers) are used to provide
communication interface to the outside world and is incompatible
with the uncompressed high-definition digital video as provided by
the HDMI standard.
App. Br. 18.
b) The combination of Sekiguchi, Humpleman, Carpenter, and Silicon
Image is improper because of the Examiner’s failure “to show a
motivation to combine the references that create the case of
obviousness.” App. Br. 18.

2 Should prosecution be continued, the Examiner may want to consider
whether there is proper antecedent basis for the recited first and second
connections.
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
5
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10–19),
the issues presented on appeal are:
1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in combining the applied references in
rejecting claim 8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments 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 (Final Act. 3–24)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–10) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In connection with contention 1(a) Appellant argues Sekiguchi’s IP
address management table associates devices with IP addresses, not first and
second connections and respective first and second focus managers. App.
Br. 12–15. Appellant argues “a connection” must be interpreted according to
details disclosed in the Specification at paragraphs 28 and 37. App. Br. 14–
15. The Examiner responds by concluding it is improper to import
limitations from the Specification into the claims. Ans. 4. Instead, under a
broad but reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation, the Examiner
finds Sekiguchi’s IP address management creation of a table that stores
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
6
information of association to connect one device with another via a
particular connection node teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans.
5. The Examiner reasons:
[T]here must be information of association between focus
managers and their respective connections because that is how a
home network functions: input to control a particular device is
received at an input port, the input must necessarily be routed to
the appropriate device connected to the home network, which
teaches that there must be information of association between
the connection and the focus manager.
Ans. 6. The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to modify the IP address
management table of Sekiguchi, which contains information of
association between devices and connections (as indicated by
the Node 10, Unique 10, Apparatus Type, Application Type,
and IP Address for each device connected to the network), to
include information associating first and second connections to
first and second focus managers.
Ans. 7.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of error. Although
Appellant argues an IP address is not a connection (Reply Br. 2), we agree
with the Examiner in concluding it improper to import limitations from the
Specification into the claims. Other than asserting the prior art fails to teach
the specific types of connections disclosed in the Specification, Appellant
fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning explaining why
the connection of claim 1 is different from the prior art connections or why,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Sekiguichi’s IP address
management table, which relates IP addresses and devices, fails to teach
storing information associating devices, e.g., associating an input device to a
focus manager.
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
7
In connection with contention 1(b) Appellant argues Carpenter’s mine
sweeper and memory game associates locations on a touch screen or a
particular input device with an application, not input devices to focus
owners. App. Br. 15–16. The Examiner responds by finding, according to
Appellant’s Specification, a focus owner may be any element on a display
plane including a window. Ans. 7. Because they are displayed in windows,
the Examiner finds Carpenter’s game and application teach the focus owners
of claim 1. Ans. 8.
We again find Appellant’s contention unpersuasive of Examiner. In
particular, other than arguing features of embodiments disclosed in the
Specification, Appellant fails to provide evidence or technical reasoning
explaining why the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed focus owner is
improper and/or not taught or suggested by Carpenter’s windows. Attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
For the reasons supra we are unpersuaded of error in connection with
the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 12, 23, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sekiguchi, Carpenter, and Humpleman together
with the rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 10, 11, 13–18, 21, 22, 24–28,
and 30–33 which were not argued separately with particularity.
In connection with contention 2(a) Appellant argues requiring the
connection ports be compatible with the High Definition Multimedia
Interface (HDMI) would render the prior art combination of Sekiguchi,
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
8
Humpleman, and Carpenter unworkable because of an alleged
incompatibility. App. Br. 17–18. The Examiner explains Appellant’s
argument only considers half of the connection, i.e., from Humpleman’s
NIUs to the Internet. Ans. 9. Addressing communications within the home,
the Examiner finds, because Humpleman describes a home network
environment including devices using HDMI compatible connections, these
connections between, for example, a set-top box and home devices using the
HDMI interface, would not render the prior art inoperable. Ans. 10.
Appellant neither provides sufficient evidence or technical reasoning
explaining the alleged incompatibility nor persuasively rebuts the
Examiner’s findings that an HDMI interface to home devices would not
adversely affect operation of a device according to the combination of
Sekiguchi, Humpleman, and Carpenter. Therefore, Appellant’s contention
2(a) is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2(b) Appellant argues the combination
of Sekiguchi, Humpleman, Carpenter, and Silicon Image is improper for
failure of the Examiner to “show reasons that a skilled artisan, confronted
with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the
claimed invention, would select the prior elements from the cited prior
references for combination in the manner claimed.” App. Br. 18 (citing In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Appellant fails to consider that in the Court’s KSR decision (KSR
Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)), the Court repudiated any
requirement for such a “suggestion or motivation” to show obviousness.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (“We begin by rejecting the rigid approach of the
Court of Appeals.”). Rather, the requirement is only that the Examiner show
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
9
“the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103)
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds Silicon Images’ HDMI would be
included in the apparatus of Sekiguchi as modified by Carpenter and
Humpleman in order to transmit digital audio and video signal in a home
networking environment. Final Act. 15–16. As such, we find the Examiner
has articulated a reason with rational underpinning for combining the
teachings of the references. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the
Examiner does not rely on hindsight in formulating the rejection. Rather, the
Examiner’s rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within
the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
We are also not persuaded of error based on the naked allegation the
Examiner failed to establish the factual inquires in the three-pronged test as
required by Graham. App. Br. 19; Graham v. John Deer Co., 383 U.S. 1
(1966). We disagree and instead find the Examiner provides sufficient
factual findings to support the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections. See Final Act.
15–16; Ans. 8–10. Moreover, Appellant fails to persuasively identify error
in these factual findings or to provide persuasive arguments or evidence to
support the conclusory statement that the Examiner’s rejection does not
make explicit the factual inquiries made. See App. Br. 19.
For the reasons supra, Appellant’s contentions of error in connection
with the rejection of claim 8 are unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Sekiguchi, Humpleman, Carpenter, and Silicon Image, together with
Appeal 2013-005008
Application 12/009,818
10
the rejection of claims 9, 19, and 20 which were not argued separately with
particularity.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in finding the prior art teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
2. The Examiner did not err in combining the applied references in rejecting
claim 8.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–33 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

kis