Saturn Licensing LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2020

15492362 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/492,362 04/20/2017 Eric Hsiao SA120143-US-CNT 9388
36738 7590 05/28/2020
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
LEE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2020 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):
John@rogitz.com
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC HSIAO
_____________

Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection of
claims 1–12 and 14–25. Claim 13 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Sony Corp. See Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to using extra space
on ultra high definition (UHD) displays when the UHD displays present high
definition (HD) video.” (Spec. 1, ¶ 1).

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Urabe et al. US 2008/0143877 A1 June 19, 2008
Nishimura US 2011/0058102 A1 Mar. 10, 2011

Rejection under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–12, 14–25 103(a) Urabe et al. (“Urabe”), Nishimura

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 11, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Apr. 4, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer, mailed Jan. 7, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed Jan. 23,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

3
Representative Independent Claim 1
1. Assembly comprising:
ultra high definition (UHD) display configured for
presenting video in 2160 pixel lines or 4320 pixel lines;
processor configured for controlling the UHD display;
a browser that is executed by the processor; and
computer readable storage medium bearing instructions
executable by the processor to:
present high definition (HD) video on the UHD display,
wherein portions of the display do not present HD video when
HD video is being presented elsewhere on the display; and
present ancillary information in the portions of the
display that do not present HD video, the ancillary information
being receivable from a source of TV signals or from the
Internet, wherein the ancillary information is received from the
source of TV signals along with the HD video.
Appeal Br., “CLAIMS APPENDIX” 7 (Bracketed lettering added and disputed
limitation emphasized).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. Based upon our review, and for the reasons discussed below,
Appellant does not provide sufficient argument and evidence to persuade us
the Examiner erred with respect to the single rejection under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), over the cited combination of Urabe and Nishimura.

Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 10, 15, and 22 under § 103(a)
In accordance with Appellant’s arguments, we adopt Appellant’s
grouping of claims 1, 3, 10, 15, and 22. See Appeal Br. 4–5. Under our
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

4
procedural rule, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim
for this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).

Issue 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our analysis on the
following argued limitations that we find to be dispositive regarding the
rejection of independent claim 1:
Did the Examiner err by finding that Nishimura teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation:
the ancillary information being receivable from a source
of TV signals or from the Internet, wherein the ancillary
information is received from the source of TV signals along
with the HD video,
within the meaning of representative independent claim 1?3 (Emphasis
added). See Final Act. 4–5.
Claim Construction
As an initial matter of claim construction regarding the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 term “ancillary information,” we
turn to the Specification for context. We find only a non-limiting,
exemplary description: “Examples of ancillary information 72
can be, but are not limited to, statistics for sporting events, additional
advertising such as a sponsor’s logo, interactive games while watching game
shows, etc.” Spec. 7, ¶ 2 (emphasis added).

3 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

5
Given this supporting description (id.), we conclude that a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 term “ancillary information” also
encompasses the electronic program table (EPG), as described in Nishimura.
See e.g., Nishimura ¶ 26 (reproduced below in part).
Appellant contends: “Nishimura describes where the relied-upon
‘programming explaining information’ is placed on screen and what it
contains, but not from whence it comes. The alleged teaching in the
rejection is simply not in Nishimura.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant asserts that it is incorrect that “Nishimura, [in] paragraphs
125 and 126 . . . teaches receiving the ancillary information from the source
of TV signals along with the HD video in a common channel with the HD
video.” Appeal Br. 4.
In reviewing the Examiner’s basis for rejecting the disputed limitation
of independent claim 1 (Final Act. 4–5), we note the Examiner relies upon
paragraph 29 of Nishimura to teach or suggest the limitation of “the
ancillary information being receivable from a source of TV signals or from
the Internet,” within the meaning of claim 1 (emphasis added).
Nishimura (¶ 29), describes in pertinent part:
The network IF portion 32 is provided to be connected
to Internet or a network such as LAN or WAN and acquires
video/audio data of a program broadcasted through the
connected network or data for generating the EPG, and
outputs them to the signal processing control portion 40.
Nishimura (¶ 29) (emphasis added).
Given this evidence, we find paragraph 29 of Nishimura teaches that
ancillary information (i.e., electronic program table (EPG) information) is
receivable from the Internet.
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

6
We note that Nishimura, at paragraph 26, also describes in pertinent
part:
The broadcast wave processing portions 20-1 to 20-n have a
tuner for acquiring a signal having a digital broadcast wave or
an analog broadcast wave which is received through an
antenna AT, and a decoder. The broadcast wave processing
portions 20-1 to 20-n perform a channel selection processing
and a demodulation/decode processing over the acquired signal
and output, to the signal processing control portion 40,
video/audio data of a program or data for generating an
electronic program table (EPG).
Nishimura, at paragraph 31, describes in pertinent part:
The signal processing control portion 40 performs various
processings such as a processing for decompressing data which
are compressed and a data extraction processing for creating
the EPG over a signal (data) input from the broadcast wave
processing portions 20-1 to 20-n, the external device IF portion
31 or the network IF portion 32.
(emphasis added).
Given this evidence, we find paragraphs 26 and 31 of Nishimura teach
that the ancillary information (electronic program table (EPG)) is receivable
from a source of TV signals (i.e., a broadcast wave).
Although the Examiner points to paragraph 31 as evidence in support
of the rejection of claims 6, 7, 18, and 25 (Final Act. 7–8) and claims 14–19
(Final Act. 8), to the extent the Examiner has not pointed to paragraph 31 in
support of the rejection of claim 1, we note the use of the alternative “or”
language within the disputed limitation of claim 1: “the ancillary
information being receivable from a source of TV signals or from the
Internet.” Claim 1 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

7
When a claim covers several alternatives, the claim may be
unpatentable if any of the alternatives within the scope of the claim are
taught by the prior art. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2001); see also Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d at 1352).
Here, we find the Nishimura reference teaches both of the claimed
alternatives, even though the Examiner need only show one of the
alternatives. See Brown, F.3d at 1351.
We find the descriptions in Nishimura of performing data extraction
processing of a data input acquired from the broadcast wave or the Internet
to create an electronic program table (EPG), teach or at least suggest: “the
ancillary information being receivable from a source of TV signals or from
the Internet, wherein the ancillary information is received from the source of
TV signals along with the HD video,” within the meaning of independent
claim 1. (Emphasis added).
Therefore, on this record, Appellant has not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding that Nishimura teaches or suggests the
aforementioned disputed limitation recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent representative claim 1. Grouped dependent claims 3, 10, 15,
and 22 (not argued separately) fall with representative claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection of Dependent Claims 6, 7, 18, and 25 under § 103(a)
In accordance with Appellant’s arguments, we adopt Appellant’s
grouping of claims 6, 7, 18, and 25. See Appeal Br. 5–6. Under our
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

8
procedural rule, we select dependent claim 6 as the representative claim for
this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Dependent claim 6 recites: “The assembly of Claim 1, wherein the
ancillary information is configured for being ignored by non-UHD
assemblies.”

Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding that Urabe and Nishimura
collectively teach or suggest the disputed limitation “wherein the ancillary
information is configured for being ignored by non-UHD assemblies,” as
recited in dependent claim 6? (Emphasis added). See Final Act. 6. See
supra, n.3.
The Examiner finds that “there are many assemblies in Nishimura or
Urabe, including non-UHD assemblies . . . [which are] not require[d] to
process the program explaining [(i.e., ancillary)] information.” See Final
Act. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings and argues that the
Examiner’s “‘finding of fact’ has no basis in the evidence of record.”
Appeal Br. 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner further explains the basis for the
rejection:
Since there is no clear definition for the “non-UHD assemblies”
limitation, it can be broadly interpreted into anything within the
realm of video process environment so long that it does not
process the ancillary information. For instance, the audio
decoder or the video decoder in either Nishimura or Urabe is
configured to ignore ancillary display data, such as the
program related information in Nishimura, because the audio
decoder or the video decoder only recognizes and processes the
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

9
audio data and the video data, respectively.
Ans. 7 (emphasis added).
As an initial matter of claim construction, we turn to the Specification
for context, and find no explicit definition for the recited claim 6 term “non-
UHD assemblies.” (emphasis added).
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 7), the only supporting description in
the Specification is found at page 2, paragraph 3: “The ancillary information
can be configured for being ignored by non-UHD assemblies.” (emphasis
added). Cf. with the “Standard High Definition Resolution (1920x1080)”
picture-in-picture display of “HD Broadcast content 92,” as depicted in
Appellant’s Figure 7.
Given this context, we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the recited claim 6 term “non-UHD assemblies” encompasses any
assemblies (i.e., components) that are not capable of processing or
displaying a UHD resolution signal.4 (emphasis added).
Turning to the evidence, the Examiner relies upon paragraphs 31 and
32 of Nishimura (Ans. 7–8) to support the rejection of dependent claim 6.
We reproduce paragraphs 31 and 32 of Nishimura, respectively, in pertinent
part:
[T]he signal processing control portion 40 performs various
processings such as an MPEG coding/decoding calculation
processing and a processing for separating video and audio
signals over the input signal (data), and outputs the video

4 See claim 1: Assembly comprising: ultra high definition (UHD) display
configured for presenting video in 2160 pixel lines or 4320
pixel lines;” (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

10
signal to the display device 61 and outputs the audio signal to
the speaker 62. The signal processing control portion 40
includes a CPU and controls an execution of the processings
by utilizing each module provided in the signal processing
control portion 40 itself or each module connected to the signal
processing control portion 40 itself.
Nishimura ¶ 31 (emphasis added).
The signal processing control portion 40 generates an OSD
screen for presenting program related information
correspondingly with the videos of the respective programs to
be displayed on the display device.
Nishimura ¶ 32 (emphasis added).
We find paragraphs 31 and 32 collectively describe an embodiment in
which the program related information (i.e., ancillary information) in
Nishimura is displayed on an OSD (On Screen Display), as detailed in
paragraph 32.
However, we find paragraph 41 of Nishimura describes a remote
control key that erases the program related information (ancillary
information): “An information key 203 serves to display/ erase program
related information about videos presented in the multiscreen.” (emphasis
added).
We further note the Examiner relies upon Urabe, at paragraph 4, for
teaching an ultra-high definition (UHD) display. See Final Act. 4. Indeed,
we find Nishimura is silent regarding any mention of UHD. Instead,
Nishimura only mentions “high definition” (HD) video that is received
through a digital tuner in the background section, at paragraph 7.
Therefore, we find Nishimura is concerned only with standard definition or
HD television displays, which are made capable of displaying multiple video
signals or multiple channels at once, in accordance with Nishimura’s
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

11
described invention. See e.g., Nishimura, Figures 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D, and
the supporting description found at paragraphs 78–88.
Because we find both the standard definition or HD displays
contemplated by Nishimura are “non-UHD assemblies,” within the meaning
of dependent claim 6, we find the description in Nishimura’s paragraph 41
renders claim 6 obvious: “The assembly of Claim 1, wherein the ancillary
information is configured for being ignored by non-UHD assemblies” which
we find occurs when information key 203 of Nishimura’s remote controller
(RC) is used to erase “program related information about videos presented
in the multiscreen.” Nishimura ¶ 41, Fig. 2; see “Information Key 203.”
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative dependent claim 6. Grouped claims 7, 18, and 25 (not argued
separately) fall with claim 6. See Appeal Br. 5–6. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection of Independent Claims 14 and 19 under § 103(a)
In accordance with Appellant’s arguments, we adopt Appellant’s
grouping of independent claims 14 and 19. See Appeal Br. 6. Under our
procedural rule, we select independent claim 14 as the representative claim
for this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We reproduce claim 14
below:
Representative Independent Claim 14
14. An ultra high definition (UHD) display device
comprising:
[L1] a UHD display configured for presenting non-UHD
video in a native resolution of the non-UHD video, leaving
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

12
some portions of the UHD display unused for presenting non-
UHD video to establish unused display portions;
a processor configured for controlling the UHD display
to present demanded images, the processor configured for
causing [L2] ancillary information received in real time with
the non-UHD video or in parallel with the non-UHD video over
the Internet to be presented in the unused display portions of the
UHD display along with the non-UHD video; and
a browser that is executed by the processor.
Appeal Br., “CLAIMS APPENDIX” 9–10 (Bracketed lettering added and
disputed limitations “L2” and “L3” emphasized).
Appellant argues claims 14 and 19 together as a group. See Appeal
Br. 6. Appellant urges that the Examiner “nowhere allege[s] that either
Urabe or Nishimura teaches a UHD display configured for presenting non-
UHD video in a native resolution of the non-UHD video (Claim 14) or that
the ancillary information is received in real time with the non-UHD video
(Claims 14 and 19).” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).

Issue 3: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our analysis on
the following argued limitations that we find to be dispositive regarding the
rejection of representative claim 14:
Did the Examiner err by finding that Urabe and Nishimura
collectively teach or suggest the disputed, dispositive limitations L1 and L2:
[L1] a UHD display configured for presenting non-UHD
video in a native resolution of the non-UHD video; and

[L2] ancillary information received in real time with the
non-UHD video,
within the meaning of independent claim 14? (Emphasis added). See Final
Act. 6. See supra, n.3.
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

13
The Examiner explains the basis for the rejection and points to
paragraph 5 of Urabe as teaching or suggesting limitation “L1” of
independent claim 14. The Examiner points to paragraphs 26, 31, and 32 of
Nishimura as teaching or suggesting limitation “L2” of claim 14.
See Ans. 8.

Limitation L1 of Independent Claim 14
We reproduce the pertinent portion of Urabe relied upon by the
Examiner as teaching disputed limitation L1:
In a case where a video having the small number of pixels such
as a SD (Standard Definition video is displayed on a display
apparatus having the large screen and high definition[)], when
one pixel of the SD video is allocated to one pixel of the display
apparatus having the large number of pixels, the display size
becomes smaller as compared with the screen size.
(Urabe ¶ 5) (emphasis added)
Given this evidence (id.), we find Urabe’s description of a standard
definition (SD) video being displayed on an apparatus having a larger,
higher definition screen, together with the related description of High
Definition (HD) and Ultra High Definition (UHD) displays in paragraph 4,
as pointed to by the Examiner in the Final Action (4), teaches or suggest
disputed limitation L1 of claim 14: “a UHD display configured for
presenting non-UHD video in a native resolution of the non-UHD video.”
(emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

14
Limitation L2 of Independent Claim 14
We reproduce the pertinent portion of Nishimura, as relied upon by
the Examiner (Ans. 8) as teaching disputed limitation L2 of claim 14:
The broadcast wave processing portions 20-1 to 20-n have a
tuner for acquiring a signal having a digital broadcast wave or an
analog broadcast wave which is received through an antenna AT, and
a decoder. The broadcast wave processing portions 20-1 to 20-n
perform a channel selection processing and a demodulation/decode
processing over the acquired signal and output, to the signal
processing control portion 40, video/audio data of a program or data
for generating an electronic program table (EPG).
(Nishimura ¶ 26) (emphasis added).
We find Nishimura’s description in paragraph 26 of performing
demodulation/decode processing over the acquired signal to output
video/audio data of a program or data for generating an electronic program
table (EPG) teaches or suggests disputed limitation L2: “ancillary
information received in real time with the non-UHD video.” (emphasis
added).
Therefore, in reviewing the record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner has erred in finding that Urabe and Nishimura collectively teach
or suggest the disputed limitations L1 and L2 of independent claim 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 14. Grouped independent claim 19 falls with representative
independent claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection of Remaining Dependent Claims
2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 under § 103(a)

Appellant does not advance separate, substantive arguments for
remaining dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24.
Appeal 2019-002286
Application 15/492,362

15
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of remaining dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17,
20, 21, 23, and 24.

Conclusion
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1–12 and 14–25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over the cited
prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejection.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12,
14–25
103(a) Urabe, Nishimura 1–12,
14–25

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED