Ex Parte Tanizoe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2008

10162663 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIDEKI TANIZOE, HIROKI IWATAKA,
MIYUKI TACHIBANA, YASUHIRO ARAKAWA,
KAZAUAKI TAKAMOTO, and TAKASHI KATAGIRI
____________

Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: June 27, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III,
and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 8, and 10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663

As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,
independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An expanded method of adjusting a display device remotely from a
computer according to a predetermined standard, said predetermined
standard having a control item code group having a maximum number of
control item codes, said method comprising the steps of:

defining superordinate codes, which are organized into pages of
control item code groups, at least one page including said control item code
group of said predetermined standard;

(a) specifying at least one of said superordinate codes between said
computer and said display device; and

(b) adjusting said display device remotely from said computer by
using at least one control item code group associated with said at least one
specified superordinate code.

The following reference is relied on by the Examiner:
Access.bus Industry Group, “Access.bus Monitor Device Protocol
Specification Version 3.0”, Section 7, September 1995, page 7-1
through 7-25 [ACCESS].

All claims on appeal, claims 1 through 8, and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by ACCESS.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’ positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.

2
Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663

OPINION
Generally for the majority of the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
At the outset, we make reference to Appellants’ discussion of the prior
art coding/protocol techniques known in the art as discussed at Specification
page 1, line 11 through page 7, line 7, plus the additional discussion at page
11, lines 3 through 7. The prior art industry standards contain coded control
or adjustment signals called VCPs (Virtual Control Panels). As best
described at Specification pages 11, lines 15 and 16 “the VCPs expansion
method according to the present invention introduces the concept of Pages as
a superordinate concept of the current VCPs.”
As to the claimed invention, independent method claim 8 merely
recites in its preamble the use of the word “expanded” method to describe
the broadly defined “concept” of a “plurality of pages” from which control
item codes are assignable. Additionally, method independent claim 1 (and
its corresponding apparatus independent claim 10) recites in its preamble an
“expanded” method such that “superordinate codes” are organized into
“pages.” The principal Brief on appeal argues claims 1 and 10 collectively
as well as claim 8 separately. Additionally, page 19 of the Brief presents
common arguments for dependent claims 2 and 7 and separate arguments for
dependent claim 3. No other arguments are presented in the Brief and Reply
Brief as to any other dependent claim on appeal.
Based upon Appellants’ initial discussion at Specification page 1 of
prior art standards, one is characterized as being a subset of the other.
Therefore, one may be considered to be a superordinate standard with
3
Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663

respect to the other one. A similar approach appears to be taught in the
reference relied upon by the Examiner. The discussion in the middle of
page 7-1 indicates the existence of two prior art standards, one which is
characterized as “a superset of the other.” This superset-characterized
standard is also explained to be full featured such as to allow a host
computer to read VDIF control information and remotely control a monitor.
This VDIF information is said to contain additional information about
monitor characteristics. Thus, the artisan would well appreciate that one
protocol may be considered to be a superset or “superordinate” set over the
basic set such as to also convey to the reader that one is “expanded” over the
other. This “concept” of an expanded ability is further exemplified by the
discussion at page 7-2 in topic 7.2.3 that the EDID data structures represent
an extended display identification capability. Therefore, from an artisan’s
prospective, the discussion which follows in this reference relating to EDID
and VDIF commands pertains to expanded capabilities that appear to be
presented in the table at page 7-4.
Although we generally agree with the Examiner’s correlation of the
claimed features to those in the references, the Examiner’s discussion of
them at pages 7 and 8 of the Answer, which form a basis for a good part of
the Reply Brief, appear to be improvidently made to some extent. Although
we agree with the Examiner’s views that the so-called EDID command
structure as noted earlier in this opinion may be considered to be a superset
or “superordinate” set of codes to the extent claimed, and therefore an
“expanded” set of codes, the Examiner’s characterization of them as being
generic and therefore a smaller set of codes appears to be a
4
Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663

mischaracterization of the actual teachings that we isolated earlier in this
opinion. On the other hand, the basic thrust of the Examiner’s thinking
appears to be proper, and we generally agree with it.
With this background in mind, we do not agree with Appellants’ basic
urging under topic 2 at page 8 of Brief that ACCESS does not disclose the
concept of superordinate codes, which are recited only in independent claims
1 and 10 on appeal and not in independent claim 8. The use of the term
“pages” is used in each of these independent claims. A “page” in claim 8 is
not recited to be superordinate. From an artisan’s perspective, the use of one
or plural pages, which applies to each independent claim on appeal,
encompasses any embodiment that the artisan may choose to actually
implement, given the prior art approaches for a limited number of code sets.
The prior art code sets do not necessarily have to be embodied in only one
“page”. The Examiner discusses this beginning at the bottom of page 9 of
the Answer. The admitted VCP table of the reference and in the admitted
prior art may be spread over plural identifiable storage units or “pages.”
Thus, no patentability is seen to exist in the mere use of the word page or
“pages” in which to store a plurality of codes.
The Examiner’s reliance upon the code set shown in the table at page
7-6 of ACCESS is noted. It appears to us that the artisan would recognize
that the ability of the vender to create vender specific or unique codes for
that vender represents an expansion or superordinate capability already
taught within the prior art. This vender capability is expanded throughout
5
Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663

the additional discussions following that page with plural examples of the
vender definable functions shown in the more expanded list of codes at page
7-21 of ACCESS.
The bulk of the arguments presented in the Brief and Reply Brief
appear to invite us to read the details of the disclosed invention into the plain
features argued such as the use of the term “pages” as well as the use of the
word “superordinate.” Generally speaking, we also do not agree with
Appellants’ urging that the Examiner has inaccurately interpreted the
claimed features and misunderstands Appellants’ arguments beginning at
page 16 of the principal Brief on appeal as we interpret the Examiner’s
responses at pages 11 and 12 of the Answer. The Examiner appears to be
indicating that no specific, new VCP codes of any kind have been actually
named or recited in the claims on appeal. Thus, there is no specific
recitation of the three new commands set forth at page 12 of the
Specification as filed, the use of which is shown in disclosed figures 3
through 5.
To the extent argued at page 19 of the principal Brief on appeal, the
common feature of dependent claims 2 through 7, of judging that a display
device is not adaptable to expansion, has been properly shown to have been
anticipated by the Examiner in the statement of the rejection of these claims
at pages 4 and 5 of the Answer. For example, at page 7-11 the topic 7.5.3
indicates that “if a host attempts to select a value that exceeds the
permissible adjustment range the monitor selects that largest permissible
value.” It therefore appears not to reply to the host command to expand it
beyond its capabilities. Furthermore, this capability also meets the
6
Appeal 2008-0700
Application 10/162,663

alternative expression recited in dependent claim 3 of an upper or lower
limit being set. As to claims 2 and 7, the discussion at page 7-13 in topic
7.5.9 also indicates that in the case where a VCP feature does make use of a
reset function, the monitor is said to ignore the command which indicates
that it appears not to send a reply back to the host computer. The same
capability exists in the discussion at page 7-14 in topics 7.5.10-7.5.11, for
example.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 through 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
PO BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH VA 22040-0747
7