Ex Parte Scheibe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2015

11836116 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL O. SCHEIBE
___________

Appeal 2012-012424
Application 11/836,116
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed March 8, 2012, the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed April 26, 2012, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June
26, 2012, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-012424
Application 11/836,116

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a graphical display. Abstract. Claim
1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A graphical display comprising:
a first-level switch;
a group of second-level switches each connected to the
first-level switch; and
a plurality of modules each controlling a group of pixels
corresponding to a portion of the graphical display, wherein the
plurality of modules are interconnected by the second-level
switches, such that the first-level switch, and the group of
second-level switches form a computer network.

The Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lauer (US 5,523,769, issued June 4, 1996) and
Riddle (US 5,434,860, issued July 18, 1995). Ans. 4–6.
The Examiner rejected claims 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lauer, Riddle, and Arthur (US 2002/0165630 A1, pub.
Nov. 7, 2002). Ans. 6–7.

ISSUE AND ANALYSIS1
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the principal and dispositive issue
before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lauer
and Riddle would have taught or suggested “wherein the plurality of

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–4 and 8. Except for our
ultimate decision, claims 2–4 and 8 are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-012424
Application 11/836,116

3
modules are interconnected by the second-level switches,” as recited in
exemplary claim 1 (App. Br. 8–11).
The Examiner finds: 
[I]n FIG 1 drawing of Riddle’s application in which there is a
clear connection from the computers to the network adaptor to
the router, therefore the network adaptors are clearly
interconnected with the computers. Also internet adaptors are
old and well known in the art and can be internal to the
computer or external to the computer. Ethernet switches are
types of switches that can be embedded on a network adaptor
which would give it the capability to switch between different
partitions as needed to provide packets to the appropriate
destinations (please see Basso et al US Publication
2006/0221961 A 1 paragraph [0016] for support of my
position). This would definitely attribute to the interconnecting
of multiple computers in conjunction with the router 19 as
described in Riddle’s application and would meet the
limitations of the claim in which applicant states second level
switches.
Ans. 8 (emphasis ours).
In other words, Basso’s adapters provide the function of
interconnecting the computers. We note that exemplary claim 1 requires the
combination of the first and second switches to interconnect the plurality of
modules. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Riddle’s router and
adapters, in combination, interconnect the computers and perform the
function recited in claim 1.
Appellant’s contention that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that Riddle’s network adapter to refer to a circuit element that
merely connects its only connected computer to a computer network, and
would not attribute to such an element the functions of interconnecting
multiple computers” (App. Br. 8–9) is not commensurate with the scope of
Appeal 2012-012424
Application 11/836,116

4
claim 1, which does not preclude such a reading. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Appellant further contends that that it would not have been
obvious to combine Lauer and Riddle because applying the teaching of
Riddle would destroy the operability of the Lauer. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner responds, and we agree, that:
Riddle would not destroy Lauer’s invention because wireless
connection can be used as well, which is known to use less
power. Since it is very old and well known in the art for
computers to have wireless cards embedded within them and
although not require by Lauer’s invention because he uses bus
system, does not mean that a wireless system cannot be used as
well. Although there might be additional hardware for wireless
communication, it does not exclude it from being used.
Ans. 8–9.
Regarding claims 5–7, Appellant argues Arthur does not cure the
alleged deficiencies of Lauer and Riddle. App. Br. 11. As discussed above,
we find no such deficiencies in Lauer and Riddle to remedy.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1–8 are sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–8 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
msc