Ex Parte 6345323 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2013

90010626 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 90/010,626 07/29/2009 6345323 2540-1197 4728 42624 7590 08/29/2013 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP 4300 WILSON BLVD., 7TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER PEIKARI, BEHZAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AVOCENT REDMOND CORP., Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2012-000093 Reexamination Controls 90/010,626 Patent 6,345,323 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING In papers filed July 9, 2012, Appellant submits an “Amendment After Decision by the Board” in which Appellant requested prosecution to be reopened and proposed new amendments to be entered. Appellant’s request was denied (see Office Communication dated May 3, 2013). Hence, Appellant’s proposed amendments have not been entered and Appellant’s request is considered as a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from Appeal 2012-000093 Reexamination Controls 90/010,626 Patent 6,345,323 B1 2 the Opinion of the Board of Patent Trial and Appeal Board, dated May 8, 2012 (“Decision”). In the Decision, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Horiuchi, Diefendorff, and Fukada. A “request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehend or overlooked in rendering the Board’s opinion reflecting its decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1). Appellant alleges that Horiuchi fails to disclose “remote computer systems” because the devices of Horiuchi “do not perform bidirectional communication with the keyboard and mouse” (Req. Reh’g 7). Appellant’s argument presumes that a “computer” as recited in claim 1 must communicate with a mouse and keyboard in a bidirectional fashion over the same communication line. However, Appellant continues to fail to demonstrate that the computer as recited in claim 1 must possess this characteristic. For example, Appellant does not demonstrate that claim 1 recites that the computer must communicate bidirectionally with a mouse and keyboard over the same communication line. In any event, this issue was previously addressed in the Decision (see, e.g., Decision 7) and Appellant does not point out with particularity the points believed to be misapprehended or overlooked. Appellant also argues that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest “the claimed ‘plurality of first signal conditioning units’ as recited in claim 1’” (Req. Reh’g. 9). In particular, Appellant argues that Horiuchi fails to Appeal 2012-000093 Reexamination Controls 90/010,626 Patent 6,345,323 B1 3 disclose a component that meets “the limitation of ‘a plurality of first signal conditioning units coupled to the keyboard, mouse and video monitor of the workstations . . .’” (Req. Reh’g. 10). We do not consider if Horiuchi discloses a component that satisfies Appellant’s stated limitation because we continue not to find that claim 1 recites a component that requires the stated limitation. Appellant also does not point out where claim 1 recites such a limitation. Appellant previously argued that Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest “first signal conditioning units” that are “coupled to displays.” In the Decision, we observed that claim 1 does not require the first signal conditioning units to be “coupled to displays” (see e.g., Decision 8). Appellant now argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “coupled” to reasonably mean “logically associated with” (Req. Reh’g 10) but does not state what Appellant believes one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, provides no evidence supporting what Appellant believes one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “coupled” to encompass, and fails to specifically indicate how such an interpretation, even assuming Appellant were to have supplied the interpretation, differs from “logically associated with.” In any event, we need not address what Appellant believes one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood because Appellant still does not sufficiently demonstrate that claim 1 requires the first signal conditioning units to be “coupled to displays.” Appeal 2012-000093 Reexamination Controls 90/010,626 Patent 6,345,323 B1 4 Appellant argues that “there is no evidence to support a modification of Horiuchi” with Diefendorff (Req. Reh’g 12) and that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Horiuchi and Diefendorff” (Req. Reh’g 15). We disagree with Appellant for at least the previously stated reasons (Decision 10-12). Appellant previously argued, and now reiterates (Req. Reh’g 13) that Horiuchi (and, presumably, Diefendorff) fails to disclose or suggest “supplying the data packets to a keyboard and mouse input of the remote computer.” We disagree with Appellant for at least the reasons previously stated in the Decision (see, e.g., Decision 9-10) and the reasons previously set forth by the Examiner (see, e.g., Ans. 12). Appellant argues that the use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” is “inappropriate” (Req. Reh’g 14), contending that previous Federal Circuit decisions were “wrongly decided” (id.). We disagree with Appellant. In any event, Appellant merely enumerates Appellant’s perceived inadequacies of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard but does not appear to point to a specific interpretation in our Decision that Appellant believes was “wrongly decided” using the broadest reasonable interpretation. Appellant requests comment on “a number of Proposed Findings of Fact” regarding various components disclosed by Horiuchi. However, Appellant fails to connect any of the seemingly unrelated statements regarding the Horiuchi reference with any specific claim feature or Appeal 2012-000093 Reexamination Controls 90/010,626 Patent 6,345,323 B1 5 previously raised issue of patentability under appeal. Therefore, we continue to have no comment on Appellant’s “proposed findings of fact 3-6.” CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and those expressed in the Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Request for Rehearing but find no points that we have misapprehended or overlooked. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is denied. DENIED Appeal 2012-000093 Reexamination Controls 90/010,626 Patent 6,345,323 B1 6 ak Patent Owner: Michael R. Casey Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP 4300 Wilson Blvd. 7th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 Third Party Requester: Tracy W. Duce Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP 1000 Louisiana Ave. Wells Fargo Plaza 53rd Floor Houston, TX 77002