Ex Parte Riedel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201613534904 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/534,904 06/27/2012 Gregg William Riedel 40205/04001 5453 30636 7590 12/21/2016 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP 150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702 NEW YORK, NY 10038 EXAMINER HE, YINGCHUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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 GREGG WILLIAM RIEDEL, JEFF HESS, and SCOTT DENAHY ____________ Appeal 2016-000384 Application 13/534,904 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-000384 Application 13/534,904 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to scaling display graphics on a display for different screen formats (Spec. ¶ 5, Figs. 1 and 2). Representative Claim on Appeal Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method, executed by one or more computer processors in communication with one or more displays, for displaying graphics on the one or more displays comprising: receiving, by the one or more computer processors, a graphics stream in a first playout format, the first playout format comprising a first display resolution and a first display layout; determining, by the one or more computer processors, a second playout format, the second playout format comprising a second display resolution and a second display layout; determining, by the one or more computer processors, an area of importance within the first display layout given the first display layout, the second display resolution, and the second display layout; determining, by the one or more computer processors, a preferred position within the second display layout, wherein the preferred position is a location in the second display layout that is in a relatively similar location as the area of importance in the first display layout; converting, by the one or more computer processors, the graphics stream from the first playout format into the second playout format using the area of importance and the preferred position; and displaying, by the one or more computer processors on the one or more displays, the converted graphics stream in the second playout format. Appeal 2016-000384 Application 13/534,904 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeHaan (US 2012/0075526 A1; Mar. 29, 2012) in view of Kondo (US 2008/0084503 A1; Apr. 10, 2008). Final Act. 6–16. Claim 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeHaan in view of Kondo, and further in view of Terry (US 5,546,131; Aug. 13, 1996). Final Act. 16–17. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeHaan in view of Kondo, and further in view of Matsuo (US 2011/0032979 A1; Feb. 10, 2011). Final Act. 17–18. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeHaan in view of Kondo, and further in view of Charter TV Screen Size (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25617712-Charter-Changing- Viewable-TVScreen-Size (Mar. 2011)). Final Act. 19. ISSUE AND ANALYSIS1 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 3–9; Reply Br. 2–7), the principal and dispositive issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of DeHaan and Kondo teaches the limitation of “converting, by the one or more computer processors, the graphics stream from the first playout format into the second playout format using the area of 1 According to Appellants, independent claim 21 recites features similar to claim 1 (App. Br. 7). Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for purposes of this appeal. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–20. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2016-000384 Application 13/534,904 4 importance and the preferred position” (hereinafter the “converting step”) as recited in claim 1. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appellants argue (App. Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–5) that the combination of DeHaan and Kondo does not teach or suggest the claimed converting step in claim 1. In particular, Appellants contend: Kondo does not disclose or suggest a “converting” step incorporating the positioning of the ticker (which purportedly corresponds to the area of importance and the preferred position in claim 1). The conversion in Kondo incorporates only the aspect ratio — that is the image is only converted from one aspect ratio to another. Once this aspect ratio conversion step has been completed, Kondo subsequently performs a further step moving the ticker to a desired location. That is, Kondo in no way considers the ticker in performing the aspect ratio conversion or its desired location. When the ticker is moved, the aspect ratio has already been converted and the only consideration in moving the ticker is its desired location. That is, this translation step in Kondo that considers only the ticker and its desired location is a wholly separate operation from the aspect ratio conversion. Therefore, it is respectfully maintained that Kondo does not disclose or suggest the converting step recited in claim 1 which utilizes the area of importance and the preferred position in the conversion itself. Reply Br. 3–4 (emphasis ours). Appeal 2016-000384 Application 13/534,904 5 Appellants’ contentions are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the broad language in claim 1 does not preclude the “subsequently performs” or “wholly separate operation” aspect of Kondo’s teachings. “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art combination relied on by the Examiner. For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–21 is sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–21 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 1–21. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation