Ex Parte RitterDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 3, 201814703607 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/703,607 05/04/2015 20230 7590 08/07/2018 V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 1909 K St., NW 9th Floor WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1152 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brendan Jacob Ritter 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. 073617.000003 7180 EXAMINER LE,SARAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/07/2018 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): patlaw@vorys.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRENDAN JACOB RITTER Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--17. Appellant has canceled claim 3. App. Br. 13. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellant identifies himself as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a video hub that apportions a video source signal amongst a plurality of display devices, based on their size and relative locations, to create a video wall. See Spec. 1-2. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A video hub for enabling a plurality of variously sized display devices to function as a unitary composite display of a single video source, the hub comprising: a housing; at least one processor mounted in said housing and configured to receive an input video source signal, receive configuration information for a plurality of display devices, wherein said configuration information includes a display size of each of said plurality of display devices and a relative location of each of said plurality of display devices with respect to each other, apportion said input video source signal over said plurality of display devices in accordance with said configuration information to generate a plurality of apportioned video signals; and an output configured to output the apportioned video signals to the plurality of display devices. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Igoe et al. (US 2008/0066124 2 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 Al; Mar. 13, 2008) ("Igoe") and Suzuki (US 2004/0125044 Al; July 1, 2004). Final Act. 5-18. 2. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Igoe, Suzuki, and Masuda et al. (US 2004/0233189 Al; Nov. 25, 2004) ("Masuda"). Final Act. 18-20. 3. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Accell, UltraA V® Mini DisplayPort 1.2 MST Multi- Display Hub - Accell, https://web.archive.org/web/20140625081724/ http://www.accellcables.com/products/ultraav-mini-disQ latQort-1-2-mst- multi-disQ lat-hub (last visited April 14, 2016) ("Accell"), and Suzuki. Final Act. 20-23. 4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Accell, Suzuki, and Igoe. Final Act. 23-25. 5. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Igoe, Suzuki, and Chia-Chun (US 2006/0020723 Al; Jan. 26, 2006). Final Act. 25-28. ANALYSIS 2 Claims 1, 4, 10---12, and 15-17 Appellant asserts that neither Igoe nor Suzuki, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests "apportion[ing] said input video source signal over said plurality of display devices in accordance with said 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed August 15, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed January 9, 2018 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 9, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed November 16, 2016 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. 3 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 configuration information to generate a plurality of apportioned video signals." App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 1-3. Rather, Appellant argues, Igoe does not apportion a video signal amongst a plurality of display devices, but presents program content on a primary display device and supplemental content on one or more secondary display devices. App. Br. 6-8 ( citing Igoe ,r,r 67-71, Figs. 11-12). In other words, Appellant contends Igoe distributes multiple video streams of content on multiple devices rather than apportioning a single video source signal amongst the plurality of display devices. App. Br. 6-7. Although Appellant acknowledges Suzuki discloses "disposing a plurality of display apparatus[ es] around a user to display a super-panoramic space image or three-dimensional virtual reality space image," Appellant asserts Suzuki's image does not correspond to a video source signal. App. Br. 8-9 (citing Suzuki ,r,r 38, 41) (emphases omitted). Appellant asserts the image is presented by primitive data stored in memory and is not a video signal. App. Br. 8-9. Accordingly, Appellant asserts Suzuki fails to teach apportioning an input video source signal over a plurality of display devices. App. Br. 9. Further, Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the multiple video stream program content of Igoe with the generation of image data taught by Suzuki to realize Appellant's claimed invention. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3. Instead, Appellant asserts the Examiner relies on improper hindsight in relying on the proposed combined teachings of Igoe and Suzuki. App. Br. 9-10. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 4 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 (CCP A 1981 ). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Igoe is generally directed to "presenting program content on multiple display devices using a wireless home entertainment hub." Igoe, Abstract. In an embodiment relied on by the Examiner (see, e.g., Final Act. 7), Igoe describes a scenario wherein a plurality of display devices are arranged to "completely encircle the user" or otherwise provide the user "with a wide angle video experience." Igoe ,r 71, Fig. 12. Igoe further describes the source device ( e.g., DVD player, set-top boxes, and gaming consoles; see Igoe ,r 27) may provide multiple video streams that are then provided to the appropriate display device or the wireless home entertainment hub (WHEH) "may receive the transmission from the source device, and transmit the appropriate video stream to the corresponding display device." Igoe ,r 71. In other words, Igoe teaches, or reasonably suggests, the hub apportions the video signal from the source device and distributes the apportioned video content to the appropriate display device. See Ans. 3. Suzuki is generally directed to a display system wherein "image data are divided among a plurality of display apparatuses that surround the user." Suzuki, Abstract. Suzuki further discloses that "parts of a wide viewing angle image are cut out and displayed on their respective display apparatus 30 in correspondence with the position, direction and screen size of each display apparatus 30." Suzuki ,r 41. Position information, for example, is provided by a position sensor that is included as part of the disclosed display apparatus. Suzuki ,r 40. Thus, Suzuki teaches receiving configuration 5 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 information for the display apparatuses, including a location (i.e., position) and display size. See Suzuki ,r 40 ( describing the generation of image data "based on such information as position, direction and screen size of each display apparatus"). Further, as identified by the Examiner (see Ans. 7), Suzuki discloses that "image data ... may be acquired through a network distribution, broadcast waves or the like or may read out from a recording medium, such as CD, DVD or video tape." Suzuki ,r 60. Thus, the Examiner finds Suzuki teaches dividing (i.e., apportioning) image data- which may include video signals-amongst a plurality of display devices in accordance with the configuration information (i.e., position and display size) of the display devices. See Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 7-8. We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Igoe and Suzuki teach, or reasonably suggest, inter alia, "apportion[ing] said input video source signal over said plurality of display devices in accordance with said configuration information to generate a plurality of apportioned video signals," as recited in claim 1. Additionally, contrary to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner did not rely on hindsight reconstruction, but rather sets forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the proposed combination and legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Igoe' s embodiment of the display devices completely encircling a user (see Igoe ,r 71) with Suzuki's teachings of using configuration information of the display devices ( e.g., position and display size) to provide 6 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 a super-panoramic or three-dimensional virtual reality space image display (see Suzuki ,r 38). See Final Act. 9; Ans. 10. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10, which recites similar limitations and was not argued separately. See App. Br. 10; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 11, 12, and 15-17, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites the video hub further comprises "a configuration input enabling a user to indicate configuration information to said processor." Appellant contends Igoe, as relied on by the Examiner, fails to teach a user indicating a display size and relative location of each of the plurality of display devices via a configuration input. App. Br. 10-11. Rather, Appellant argues the cited portions of Igoe are directed to a manual registration process wherein the user indicates the functionality of the device being registered. App. Br. 10-11 ( citing Igoe ,r 39). Alternately, Igoe, as relied on by the Examiner, describes a power management scenario wherein after a power-on message, the wireless hub retrieves the capabilities needed for a session. App. Br. 11 ( citing Igoe ,I 59). In response, the Examiner additionally cites paragraph 67 of Igoe, which describes the user may designate a device as a primary device during 7 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 or after the registration process. Ans. 13-14 (citing Igoe ,r 67). Alternately, the wireless home entertainment hub (WHEH) may automatically designate one of the display devices as a primary display based on, inter alia, screen size. Igoe ,r 67. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence, or provided sufficient technical explanation or reasoning, that the cited sections of Igoe teach or reasonably suggest a configuration input enabling a user to indicate configuration information including a display size and relative location of the display device. Rather, the cited portions of Igoe allow a user to register a device ( or cause a device to register with the hub), or allow the system to automatically designate a display device as a primary device based on, inter alia, screen size. The Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or reasoning as how Igoe allows a user to indicate the relative location of the display device. For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. Claims 5 and 6 Claims 5 and 6 depend directly from claim 1. Claim 5 recites "the hub further includes a first video port configured to receive data having a first video standard, and a secondary video input port configured to receive data having a second video standard different from said first video standard." Claim 6 recites "the hub further includes a plurality of video output ports wherein each video output port is configured for a different video standard." The Examiner relies on the combined teaching and 8 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 suggestions of Igoe, Suzuki, and Masuda in rejecting these claims. Final Act. 18-20. Appellant argues Figure 7 of Masuda, as relied on by the Examiner, does not describe a first video port configured to receive data having a first video standard and a second video port configured to receive data having a second video standard. App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided an explanation as to how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the Igoe/Suzuki system with the teachings of Masuda to arrive at the claimed invention. App. Br. 11. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Figure 7 of Masuda illustrates a hub having a plurality of input (upstream) and output (downstream) ports. See Masuda, Fig. 7 (upstream ports (61, 66) and downstream ports ( 62---65) ); see also Masuda ,r,r 77, 81. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Igoe teaches two different video standards. Ans. 15 ( citing Igoe ,r 45 ( describing different input sources, such as a cable broadcast or DVD output)). Thus, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Masuda and Igoe to teach the plurality of inputs ( claim 5) and outputs ( claim 6) configured for different video standards. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious to combine the multiple ports of Masuda with the Igoe/Suzuki system "to achieve the well- known and expected benefits of providing more ports for [ the hub]." Final Act. 19. Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings. See Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6. 9 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 Claim 7 The Examiner relies on the combined teachings and suggestions of Accell and Suzuki in rejecting independent claim 7. Final Act. 20-23. In particular, the Examiner finds Accell teaches a video wall comprising a plurality of display devices and a video hub configured to provide portions of a video signal to each of the display devices in accordance with their size and/or aspect ratio such that the combined images form a composite display of a single video image. Final Act. 21 ( citing Accell 2 (Figure of video wall with 6 displays)). The Examiner finds Suzuki teaches a plurality of display devices wherein at least one of the display devices has a size and/or aspect ratio different than another display device and that the different portions of the video image are provided in accordance with the size and/or aspect ratio of the display device. Final Act. 21-22 (citing Suzuki ,r,r 39, 41, Fig. 1). Appellant argues the figure in Accell does not teach at least one video display having a size and/or aspect ratio different from another of the display devices. App. Br. 10. Additionally, Appellant advances a similar argument to that advanced regarding claim 1 that it would not have been obvious to modify Accell's video signal display system with the computer-generated image data system of Suzuki. App. Br. 10. Appellant's argument that Accell fails to teach at least one display device having a different size and/or aspect ratio from other display devices in the video wall is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner and is, therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner relies on Suzuki-not Accell-to teach a plurality of display devices wherein at least one of the display devices has a different size and/or aspect ratio than another display device. See Final Act. 21-22. Further, as 10 Appeal2018-002520 Application 14/703,607 discussed supra, Suzuki teaches that the image data may be provided by a DVD or video tape. See Suzuki ,r 60. Thus, Suzuki is not limited to a computer-generated image data system, as asserted by Appellant. Similar to claim 1, the Examiner sets forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the proposed combination and legal conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 23; see also In re Kahn, 441 F .3d at 988. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 Appellant does not present separate arguments of patentability regarding claims 8, 9, 13, and 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation