Ex Parte Zeng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

12634571 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/634,571 12/09/2009
111408 7590 03/16/2016
Osha Liang LLP/Synaptics
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henry Zeng
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.
38018/016002; 49487.10 7765
EXAMINER
KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
hathaway@oshaliang.com
docketing@oshaliang.com
lord@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRY ZENG and JIMMY LEE 1
Appeal2014-005263
Application 12/634,571
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose a multi-monitor display that receives video data
configured for a single N x M video display, splits the video data into a
1 Appellants identify Synaptics Incorporated as the Real Party in Interest.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-005263
Application 12/634,571
plurality of portions spanning the N x M display, and transmits the plurality
of portions to a corresponding plurality of displays. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A multi-monitor system, comprising:
an image receiver configured to receive image data of N
pixels by M pixels;
a plurality of transmitters, each of the plurality of
transmitters configured to provide a portion of the image data to
a corresponding display of a plurality of displays; and
a splitter coupled between the image receiver and the
plurality of transmitters, the splitter comprising:
a controller coupled to the plurality of displays, the
controller configured to receive configuration data for
each of the displays, the configuration data including a
pixel size, orientation, and an indication of whether the
disnlav is active.
~ ~ ;
wherein the controller is configured to divide the
image data into the portion based on the received
configuration data.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-12, and 15-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ludtke et al. (US 6,501,441 Bl; Dec.
31, 2002) and Wilk et al. (US 2008/0055189 Al; Mar. 6, 2008). Final Act.
2-5.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ludtke, Wilk, and Lin (US 2008/0201215 Al; Aug.
21, 2008). Final Act. 5---6.
2
Appeal2014-005263
Application 12/634,571
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ludtke and Wilk
teaches or suggests a "controller configured to receive configuration data for
each of the displays ... wherein the controller is configured to divide the
image data into the portion based on the received configuration data," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Wilk' s formation of data in
multiple displays (i.e., the orientation, pixels, and backlight for activity) by a
central controller teaches or suggests or suggests a controller coPJigi1red to
receive configuration data for each of a plurality of displays. Final Act. 3
(citing Wilk i-fi-198-100, Figs. 15, 17). The Examiner further finds that
because Wilk's displays respond back to the controller, the displays must be
active. Ans. 9-10. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Wilk,
rather than receiving configuration data, sends configuration data in terms of
power and control signals to backlight inverters in the monitors. App. Br. 10
(citing Wilk i-fi-198-102, 113, and Fig. 15).
In response, the Examiner further finds Ludtke' s acceptance of
commands that allows a user, through a control device, to specify controls
for display devices teaches or suggest a controller configured to receive
configuration data (e.g., controls)for each of a plurality of displays. See
3
Appeal2014-005263
Application 12/634,571
Ans. 10-11 (citing, e.g., Ludtke col. 19, 11. 53---63). This finding is
supported by Ludtke' s teaching of "controls such as which display devices
are to be used, the configuration and orientation of the image on the multiple
display configuration and other appropriate characteristics." Ludtke col. 19,
11. 59---63.
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings with
respect to Ludtke. Rather, Appellants argue "claim 1 certainly does not
require that the displays respond back" (i.e., that a response back from the
displays is unnecessary to teach or suggest receiving an indication of
whether a display is active). Reply Br. 6. Appellants' argument is both
incommensurate with the claimed invention-which does not preclude the
receipt of configuration data from displays-and unresponsive to the
Examiner's findings with respect to Ludtke. See Ans. 10-11. That is, even
though the Examiner notes that in "Wilk, since the CPU received the two
displays['] resolution[s] ... the displays [are] active" (id.), the Examiner's
findings with respect to Ludtke are based on the user-rather than the
display-specifying which devices are used (id. (citing, e.g., Ludtke col. 19,
11. 53---63)). Thus, whether the claims are broad enough to encompass
configuration data being received from the displays is irrelevant with respect
to showing error in the Examiner's reliance on Ludtke. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Wilk and Ludtke teaches or
suggests a "controller configured to receive configuration data for each of
the displays," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10-11.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner also finds the combination of Wilk
and Ludtke, by teaching or suggesting dividing image data equally among
displays, teaches or suggests wherein the controller is configured to divide
4
Appeal2014-005263
Application 12/634,571
the image data into a portion based on the received configuration data.
Ans. 10-11 (citing Ludtke Fig. 2, col. 11, 11. 10-29; Wilk i-f 53); Final Act. 3
(citing Figs. 15, 17, and i-fi-1 98-100). Appellants contend the Examiner erred
because "Wilk' s controller divides Wilk' s image data across all displays,
regardless of whether the displays are active." App. Br. 10. However, the
Examiner correctly notes that the claim language does not require image
data to be only divided among active displays. See Ans. 9-10. The claimed
controller is configured to divide image data into a portion based on the
received configuration data, where the claimed configuration data includes a
pixel size, orientation, and an indication of whether the display is active.
Dividing the image data based on any portion of the configuration data (e.g.,
pixel size or orientation) falls within a broad, but reasonable, interpretation
of the claimed division of image data. Dividing the image data based on
even a portion of the configuration data means that the image data division is
based on the configuration data. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
dividing image data equally among displays, as taught or suggested by the
combination of Ludtke and Wilk, teaches or suggests "wherein the controller
is configured to divide the image data into the portion based on the received
configuration data," as recited in claim 1. Final Act 2-3; Ans. 9-10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2-12 and 15-21, which Appellants do not argue
separately. Appellants do not make additional arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2, 13, and 14. Final Act. 11. Therefore, we also sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
5
Appeal2014-005263
Application 12/634,571
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6