Ex Parte Pasqualini et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2009

10487733 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GIUSEPPE PASQUALINI and
LUIGI ALBANI

____________

Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided1: February 23, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R.§ 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 11. (App. Br. 4).2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ system employs an input device, such as a mouse, or
keyboard, attached to a host computer, to adjust display settings, such as
brightness, on a monitor or other display device. Prior art systems employ
dedicated buttons on the display to adjust the settings. (Spec. 1).
Claims 1, 2, and 5, illustrative of the invention, follows:

1 A method of adjusting display settings of a display device which
receives picture information from a host device, the host device receiving
input information from an input device, the method comprising the step of
sending control information relating to the input information for adjusting
the display settings to the display device.

2. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein display setting
information is displayed on a screen of the display device, and in that said
control information is recognized by the display device and processed as a
command in relation to the display setting information displayed on said
screen.

5. A system, comprising:
a host device,
an input device coupled to the host device;
a display device coupled to the host device as an output device, the
display device having at least one operational parameter influencing the
operation of the display device;
wherein the host device is adapted to send to the display device

2 The Appellants’ Brief (filed February 16, 2007) (“App. Br.”) and
Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (filed May 20, 2007)
(“Res. App. Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed September 7, 2007)
(“Ans.”), detail the parties’ positions.
2
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

control information corresponding to signals input by the input device;
and wherein the display device comprises an evaluation circuit for
evaluating the control information received from the host device, and to
generate adequate internal adjustment commands for the at least one
operational parameter.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:

Wu US 5,550,556 Aug. 27, 1996

The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
upon Wu.

ISSUES
Appellants assert that Wu does not anticipate claim 1 because Wu
does not teach the step of sending control information relating to the input
information. (App. Br. 6). The issue with respect to claim 1 is:
Does Wu disclose the step of sending control information relating to
the input information, as set forth in claim 1, thereby anticipating claim 1?
Appellants also assert that Wu does not anticipate claims 2-4.
Appellants focus on claim 2, asserting that Wu does not teach that “said
control information is recognized by the display device and processed as a
command in relation to the display setting information displayed on the
screen.” (App. Br. 8). The issue with respect to claims 2-4 is:
Does Wu disclose “that said control information is recognized by the
display device and processed as a command,” as set forth in claim 2, thereby
anticipating claim 2?
Finally, Appellants argue that Wu does not disclose the evaluation
circuit set forth in claim 5. Appellants do not separately argue claims 6-11,
3
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

which depend from claim 5. (App. Br. 7). The issue with respect to claims
5-11 is:
Does Wu disclose the evaluation circuit set forth in claim 5, thereby
anticipating claim 5?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Wu’s input device, a keyboard or mouse, transmits adjustment
information to a monitor. A host processor 101 codes the information into
video signals, color codes, and sends the information to the monitor. (Wu,
col. 1, ll. 30-42; col. 3, ll. 6-20, col. 10, ll. 47-53; Fig. 1, Abstract).
2. Wu’s monitor decodes the signals to control the adjustments. (Wu,
col. 1, ll. 54-58, col. 3, ll. 3-5).
3. A separator in the monitor extracts the control signals from the
video signals. The video signals are coupled to the display 117, and the
control signals are coupled to the control circuits 119. The control circuits
send adjusted control signals to the display. (Wu, col. 3, ll. 6-20, Figs. 1, 2).
4. Control signals from the host are also generated and processed in
the separator within the display monitor. A controller 225 in the separator
decodes control information entered by a user and embedded in RGB signal
lines 201R, 201G, and 201B, and outputs corresponding control signals to
DAC devices 229, which then send commands to standard vertical (Fig. 8)
and horizontal driver (Fig. 9) circuits, which control the horizontal, vertical
and size adjustments to the screen, as input by the user. (Wu, col. 7, ll. 10-
18, 65-67; col. 8, ll. 14-16, see generally col. 3, l. 8 to col. 8, l. 15; Figs. 1,
2).
4
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

5. Wu’s system provides feedback so that a user can interactively
enter the adjustments referenced in FF 1-4, using a movable marker
adjustable by a mouse or keyboard. The marker and adjustments are
displayed on the monitor display screen. (Wu, Fig. 7; col. 8, ll. 16-44; col.
10, ll. 6-19).
6. According to Appellants, Appellants’ host sends (to the display)
“control information corresponding to signals input by the input device.”
(Res. App. Br. 2). Appellants’ host codes the input signals, described as
mouse status information (MSI), into video, and sends the coded video to the
display monitor (Spec. 5: 11-20).
7. According to Appellants, Wu’s “host system must include software
which matches the monitor’s command structure in order for the host
computer to translate or interpret the input device’s positional movements
and button clicks (e.g. mouse) into actual commands used by the monitor to
adjust the monitor settings (Appellants’ Specification, page 2, line 32 to
page 3, line 11).” (App. Br. 5).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation is
established when a single prior art reference discloses expressly or under the
principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
5
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “[T]he words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). “The problem in this case is that the appellants failed to make
their intended meaning explicitly clear.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056
(Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is the applicant’s burden to precisely define their
invention, not the PTO’s.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellants assert that Wu does not anticipate claim 1 because
Appellants “simply send[] the input information; whereas, Wu [sends]
monitor commands.” (App. Br. 6). Appellants explain that Wu’s host
processes input device signals into monitor control commands. The host
then sends the control commands, carrying the adjustment data, to the
monitor. The monitor then decodes the commands. (App. Br. 6).
Under any reasonable interpretation of claim 1, Appellants’
description of Wu meets “the step of sending control information relating to
the input information.” As explained by Appellants (FF 7), Wu’s host
converts the input information into monitor control commands and sends the
commands to the monitor. (See also FF 1-5). Hence, sending Wu’s control
commands constitute the step of sending control information related to the
input information, as set forth in claim 1. Claim 1 is not limited to a mere
transfer by the host of the input information to the display, contrary to
Appellants argument (see also App. Br. 5), as the Examiner reasoned (Ans.
5-6). Moreover, Appellants’ disclosed host, like Wu’s, codes the input
6
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

information into video. (Compare FF 7 with FF 1). Therefore, Wu
anticipates claim 1.
Similar to Appellants’ argument noted above, Appellants also contend
that Wu does not anticipate claim 2 because claim 2 requires the host to
merely forward the input commands from the input device – as if the host
were transparent. (App. Br. 8). This argument is not convincing, for
reasons explained above. Further, claim 2 does not recite a host. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope.
Appellants also argue that Wu does not anticipate claim 2 because
Wu’s host processes the input information, but the claim requires the
monitor to process the commands. (Id.). Appellants’ argument must fail
because Wu’s monitor also processes the commands. (FF 1-5, 7). For
example, Wu’s display separator, in the display monitor, creates vertical,
horizontal and size adjustment commands from host data related to the input
information, and then sends the adjustment commands to the display drivers,
which adjust the screen. (FF 3, 4).
Additionally, Appellants acknowledge that Wu’s host device “send[s]
the command to the display” (App. Br. 8) and that the host converts “the
input device’s positional movements and button clicks (e.g. mouse) into
actual commands used by the monitor to adjust the monitor settings” (FF 7)
(emphasis supplied). Appellants also state (App. Br. 6) that Wu’s monitor
decodes the commands, as noted supra. Hence, Appellants’ statements
buttress the finding that the monitor processes (i.e., uses, decodes) the
command.
Appellants argue that Wu does not anticipate claim 5 because Wu’s
monitor does not comprise an evaluation circuit “to generate adequate
7
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

internal adjustment commands for at least one operational parameter.”
(App. Br. 7). Appellants maintain that Wu’s host generates the commands;
therefore, Wu’s monitor does not. This argument also fails for reasons
explained supra; i.e., it implies that Wu’s host and monitor do not generate
separate commands. As discussed supra, Wu’s display separator, the recited
“evaluation circuit,” creates separate horizontal, vertical and size adjustment
commands (for the display drivers). Wu’s adjustment commands constitute
the recited “adequate internal adjustment commands.” (FF 3-5).

CONCLUSION
Wu discloses the step of sending control information relating to the
input information, as set forth in claim 1, thereby anticipating claim 1.
Wu discloses “that said control information is recognized by the display
device and processed as a command,” as set forth in claim 2, thereby
anticipating claim 2. Wu also discloses the evaluation circuit set forth in
claim 5, thereby anticipating claim 5. Appellants did not present separate
arguments for claims 2-4 and 6-11. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11.
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

8
Appeal 2008-5322
Application 10/487,733

gvw

CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
9