Ex Parte Tanizoe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2013

10162663 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

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

Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10 (App. Br. 3). Claim 9 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a technique in which a host
computer such as a personal computer remotely adjusts a display device or a
display monitor connected to the host computer.” (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
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:

expanding the maximum number of control item codes
by 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;

defining at least one command which allows the
computer to request the display to send an indication of which
of the superordinate codes has been set in the display;

(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.
(disputed limitation emphasized).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated over ACCESS.bus (ACCESS.bus Monitor Device
Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

3
Protocol Specification Version 3.0, ACCESS.bus Industry Group, Section 7,
Pages 7-1-7-25, September1995). (Ans. 3-7).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection
of claims 1-8 and 10 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the cited ACCESS.bus reference does not disclose
“defining at least one command which allows the computer to request the
display to send an indication of which of the superordinate codes has been
set in the display,” as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6-7). In
particular, Appellants contend:
Although ACCESS.bus discloses a command for
requesting information about a specific VCPVirtual Control
Panel] feature, e.g., the brightness setting, nowhere in
ACCESS.bus is there any disclosure of a command which
requests the display to send an indication of which of the
superordinate codes or pages has been set as claimed. To the
contrary, the Get VCP feature command, as discussed in the
background of the Specification, merely requests the display
monitor to send a current setting of a specified adjustment item
(i.e., one of the control item codes) based on the VCP op code
included in the call. Although the adjustment/control item may
be defined within the page or superordinate code it is not
equivalent to the page or superordinate code nor does it indicate
which page or superordinate code has been set.
In response to Applicants'] arguments, the Examiner
asserts that "[t]he 'GE' command accesses the monitor to send a
control feature or command back to the computer. The
commands that are sent back to the computer include
Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

4
superordinate codes therefore providing an indication of the
superordinate codes." Applicants respectfully disagree.
As discussed above, the GET command only provides an
indication of a particular feature setting, not the superordinate
code (i.e., set of features) set in the monitor. One skilled in the
art would readily appreciate that a particular feature could be
including in multiple superordinate codes/pages given that a
superordinate code/page defines a plurality of features.
Therefore, providing a value setting for a particular feature does
not inherently indicate which superordinate codes is in use.
Accordingly, ACCESS.bus does not anticipate claim 1 because
ACCESS.bus fails to disclose each and every claimed element.
(App. Br. 6).
The Examiner disagrees:
The Get VCP Feature includes the instruction which is
described under "Device to Host". This includes "CP" and "02"
which are VCP op codes. The command that is defined is sent
from device to host includes an indication of the superordinate
codes "CP" and "02". This indication allows for the host
computer to recognize that the "CP' and "02" code has been set
in the display device. Therefore, ACCESS.bus does disclose
defining at least one command which allows the computer to
request the display to send an indication of which of the
superordinate codes have been set in the display. See page 7-9,
section 7.5.1 and 7.5.2.
(Ans. 7).
Appellants further respond in the Reply Brief:
On page 7 of the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner
asserts that the Get VCP Feature command defined in the
ACCESS.bus reference is equivalent to a command that allows
the computer to request the display to send an indication of
which of the superordinate codes has been set in the display as
claimed because the VCP feature reply is a device to host
response that includes "CP" and "02" which the Examiner
asserts are VCP op codes. The Examiner's finding is unfounded
for the following reasons.
Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

5
First, as discussed in Appellants' Appeal Brief, the Get
VCP Feature is a command which instructs the monitor to send
information about a specified control feature, not the
superordinate code or pages which have] been set as claimed.
Merely disclosing a command for requesting information about
a specific VCP feature, e.g., the brightness setting, is not
equivalent to disclosing a command which requests the display
to send an indication of which of the superordinate codes or
pages has been set. Although the adjustment/control item may
be defined within the page or superordinate code, it is not
equivalent to the page or superordinate code nor does it indicate
which page or superordinate code has been set.
Second, the VCP Feature response only provides an
indication of a particular feature setting, not the superordinate
code (i.e., set of features) set in the monitor. One skilled in the
art would readily appreciate that a particular feature could be
included in multiple superordinate codes/pages given that a
superordinate code/page defines a plurality of features.
Therefore, providing a value setting for a particular feature does
not inherently indicate which superordinate codes is in use.
Accordingly, the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of
ACCESS.bus are unfounded.
(Reply Br. 1-2).

Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that ACCESS.bus
discloses: “defining at least one command which allows the computer to
request the display to send an indication of which of the superordinate codes
has been set in the display,” within the meaning of independent claim 1
(emphasis added)?

ANALYSIS
This appeal turns upon claim construction. We focus our analysis on
the scope of the disputed claim limitation “defining at least one command
which allows the computer to request the display to send an indication of
Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

6
which of the superordinate codes has been set in the display;” (independent
claim 1, emphasis added). Our reviewing court guides that “[i]n the
patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations . . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citations omitted).
Here, Appellants urge that “[a]s discussed above, the GET command
only provides an indication of a particular feature setting, not the
superordinate code (i.e., set of features) set in the monitor.” (App. Br. 6)
(emphasis added). In the Reply Brief, Appellants essentially restate the
same argument regarding the set of features:
First, as discussed in Appellants' Appeal Brief, the Get
VCP Feature is a command which instructs the monitor to send
information about a specified control feature, not the
superordinate code or pages which [have] been set as claimed.
Merely disclosing a command for requesting information about
a specific VCP feature, e.g., the brightness setting, is not
equivalent to disclosing a command which requests the display
to send an indication of which of the superordinate codes or
pages has been set. Although the adjustment/control item may
be defined within the page or superordinate code, it is not
equivalent to the page or superordinate code nor does it indicate
which page or superordinate code has been set.
Second, the VCP Feature response only provides an
indication of a particular feature setting, not the superordinate
code (i.e., set of features) set in the monitor.
(Reply Br. 1-2, emphasis added).
We observe that the set of features repeatedly argued by Appellants is
not claimed. To the contrary, we conclude that “an indication of which of
the superordinate codes has been set in the display” (claim 1) (emphasis
added) also reads on a single current brightness setting that is requested and
Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

7
returned, as disclosed by the ACCESS.bus reference (pp. 7-9, 7-10), and
found by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 7).
Moreover, we observe that Appellants’ superordinate codes defined in
claim 1 are “organized into pages of control item code groups, at least one
page including said control item code group of said predetermined
standard” (claim 1) (emphasis added). Thus, according to the plain
language of Appellants’ claim 1, the defined superordinate codes “organized
into pages of control item code groups” contain at least one page that
pertains to a predetermined standard, which we conclude broadly reads on
the ACCESS.bus standard described as background prior art in Appellants’
Specification (p.3, l.1), and, more particularly, on the cited portions of the
ACCESS.bus reference relied on by the Examiner as prior art. (Ans. 3-4, 7).
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the cited ACCESS.bus reference
merely describes predetermined standard VCP features, we conclude the
Examiner’s broader reading is not precluded by the plain language of
representative claim 1.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation. We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 10 (not argued separately) fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection under §102 of claims 1-8 and 10.
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).

Appeal 2010-009231
Application 10/162,663

8
AFFIRMED

llw