Ex Parte Ritter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2018

14703607 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018)

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