Ex Parte Chiu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2019

14684541 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/684,541 04/13/2015 Pi-Chang Chiu
109673 7590 03/06/2019
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
280 Interstate North Circle SE
Suite 550
Atlanta, GA 30339
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.
252328-1850 7723
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2019 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PI-CHANG CHIU and KUO-HUA CHEN
Appeal2018-006376
Application 14/684,541 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge,
JAMES W. DEJMEK.
Opinion dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge,
JOSEPH L. DIXON.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15. Appellants have canceled claims 3, 4, 8,
12, and 16. See Br. A-1-A-5 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction over the
remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify WISTRON CORPORATION as the real party in
interest. Br. iii. The first numbered page in Appellants' Appeal Brief begins
with 2 on the fifth page of the brief. For reference purposes, we refer to the
first four pages using romanettes.
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
synchronously displaying a source image on a display matrix (i.e., a plurality
of individual display devices arranged in a matrix). Spec. ,r 1; see also
Spec., Fig. 7 A. According to the Specification, in a conventional display
matrix, the source image to be displayed is provided to each of the display
devices in parallel. Spec. ,r 3. In a disclosed embodiment, Appellants
describe "a display matrix serially connecting multiple display devices via a
daisy chain ... [wherein] the source image is sequentially transmitted
between the display devices according to the serial connection order." Spec.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A display matrix, comprising:
a first display device for transmitting a source image at a
first transmitting time point;
a second display device, serially connected to the first
display device via a daisy chain, for receiving the source image
at a second receiving time point before a first display time point,
wherein the first display time point is determined according to a
total number of the display devices in the daisy chain; and
a third display device, serially connected to the second
display device via the daisy chain, for receiving the source image
at a third receiving time point which is the same as or before the
first display time point, wherein the third receiving time point is
later than the second receiving time point, wherein the display
devices are arranged in a matrix, and the display devices display
the source image at the first display time point, wherein
arrangement information comprising the total number, position
of each of the first, the second and the third display devices in
2
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
the daisy chain and arrangement of the matrix is transmitted
though the daisy chain.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Odagiri et al. (US 2016/0062725 Al;
Mar. 3, 2016) ("Odagiri") and Panvelwala et al. (US 2015/0195342 Al;
July 9, 2015) ("Panvelwala"). Final Act. 4--10.
ANALYSIS 2
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that Odagiri teaches a
plurality of display devices serially connected via a daisy chain for
receiving, inter alia, a source image. Br. 7-9. Appellants acknowledge that
Odagiri describes a plurality of display devices that are serially connected
via a daisy chain, but assert the source image is not transmitted via the daisy
chain. Br. 8-9. More specifically, Appellants argue Odagiri teaches
transmitting the video source image over a separate (i.e., not a daisy
chained) interface. Br. 8-9 (citing Odagiri, Figs. 1, 4).
Odagiri generally relates to a multiscreen display apparatus. Odagiri,
Title. Odagiri describes a multiscreen display apparatus as including "a
plurality of video display apparatuses arranged in a matrix and daisy-chain
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the ( corrected) Appeal
Brief, filed March 6, 2018 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed
March 29, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed October 25,
2017 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellants did not file
a Reply Brief. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are
considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
3
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
connected through a communication cable such that screens of the plurality
of video display apparatuses form a multiscreen having a rectangular shape."
Odagiri ,r 13. Figure 1 of Odagiri is illustrative and is reproduced below:
FIG. 1
5
~--/ 70 100-1 71 100-2
~tWR~{L ............... _ ..... /_' ............... .....,·· .. ·. · .. /. ·.· .·· .... t ,__·· _·· ~· )_ .....
100-3
'
APPARAHJS
~-~7
/ 72
--~ i
EXTE~l-i.~L /
CONTROL
APPARATUS
6
)
-,/---
-·----./2 f 72
,-.-~------···-···················----r-- --- ... _} ________ _
,-100-8 100-·7 ( 100··6
72:
) ;
i/
---J--·--------------~--------~-~----~----~--~~--~-~--~-~=-~--~-~
100-4
.I .... - - - ,·
: 71-····· 100-9 100-10 _)00-11 ,)00-12
., 71~-~
)
i
' i
; !
: I
-~X : ...... cc·::·::·:;14 ....... J ................. -:.~.:~._):Z .
1000
/
Figure 1 of Odagiri illustrate a configuration of a multiscreen display
apparatus (1000) according to a disclosed embodiment. Odagiri ,r,r 17, 41.
In this embodiment, the multiscreen display apparatus (1000) is comprised
of 12 video display apparatuses (100-1, 100-2, ... 100-12). Odagiri ,r 43.
Within the multiscreen display apparatus, Odagiri describe the individual
video display apparatuses (100-n) are daisy chain connected via
communication cable (71 ). Odagiri ,r 46. In addition to the daisy chain
connection ( via communication cable (71) ), each video display apparatus is
connected to hub (6) via a separate network cable (72). Odagiri ,r 55.
4
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
Additionally, an end video display apparatus (e.g., 100-1) is connected to an
external control apparatus (5) via control cable (70). Odagiri ,r 50.
Figure 4 of Odagiri is also illustrative and is reproduced below:
FIG. 4
: V[l)f:O fl1SPL1W APPARATUS
r34
r33 __________________ /
,35a
~PUT--TERM!~Al ·--
.-4
.!
VWtO SOUi-lCf.
APPAR.~rus
OUTPUT TER!/.!1/Al
37
!
VIDEO INPUT C!RCU!T!------..,>t
/-100
I
- "' - - j ~
CONTROL UN ll
,21 ,32
CALCUI.MJN6 i --~--·-···················/.. .....
UNIT i I<'--~_,. STCIRlNG UNIT
}
SETTING uim
DISPLAY
PROCESWlG UN IT
22
.-38 /40
1oo----...;;.i D!SPi.AY U~IT
Figure 4 of Odagiri illustrates a block diagram of one of the video
display apparatuses from Figure 1 ( e.g., video display apparatus (100-1) ).
Odagiri ,r,r 20, 66. As shown, the video display apparatus (100) has an input
to external control terminal (34) from external control apparatus (5).
Odagiri ,r 75. Odagiri discloses that the connection from external control
apparatus (5) to external control terminal (34) of video display apparatus
(100) is via control cable (70). Odagiri ,r 75; see also Odagiri, Fig. 1. As
discussed above, a video display apparatus is daisy chain connected to
adjacent video display apparatus( es) via a communication cable (71 ). See
Odagiri, Fig. 1. Regarding the particular input/output on the video display
5
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
apparatus, Odagiri teaches input terminal 35a "is an input terminal for
receiving data (information) in the daisy chain communication ... [and]
output terminal 35b is a terminal for sending data (information) in the daisy
chain communication." Odagiri ,r 70. Odagiri teaches the output terminal
(35b) of a video display apparatus is connected to the input terminal (35a) of
the next video display apparatus in the particular sequence. Odagiri ,r 71.
The connection is the daisy chain connection via communication cable (71 ).
Odagiri ,r,r 71-72; see also Odagiri, Fig. 1. Additionally, Odagiri describes
"[t]he video input circuit 37 receives a video signal output by the video
source apparatus 4 located outside the multiscreen display apparatus 1000."
Odagiri ,r 87, Fig. 4.
We find persuasive Appellants' arguments that Odagiri describes
separate interfaces for: (i) connecting video display apparatuses together via
a daisy chain connection; and (ii) receiving a video source signal. See Br. 7-
8. As described above, separate from control cable (70)----connecting
external control apparatus (5) to external control terminal (34}--and
separate from communication cable (71)----connecting video display
apparatuses from output terminal (3 5b) to input terminal (3 5a) in a daisy
chain configuration-Odagiri describes receiving a video signal from a
video source apparatus (i.e., not from an adjacent video display apparatus).
Odagiri ,r 87. Further, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or
technical reasoning to support a finding that Odagiri teaches the video signal
(i.e., source image) is distributed to each of the video display apparatuses via
the daisy chain connection (71 ). See Ans. 16.
Because we find it dispositive that Odagiri, as relied on by the
Examiner, does not teach distributing a source image for display between a
6
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
plurality of display devices via a daisy chain connection, as required by
independent claims 1, 9, and 13, we need not address other issues raised by
Appellants' arguments.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 9 and 13, which recite limitations
commensurate in scope to those of independent claim 1. Additionally, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 10, 11, 14, and 15,
which depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11,
and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PI-CHANG CHIU and KUO-HUA CHEN
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully dissent from the Majority's decision reversing the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for patentability of
independent claims 1, 9, and 13. As a result, I would select independent
claim 9 as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants'
arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). I do not consider
arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief so we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 ( c )(1 )(iv). I further note that Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to
respond to the Examiner's clarifications in the Examiner's Answer. I would
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
decide the appeal on the express arguments made by Appellants and factual
findings argued by Appellants, and I find Appellants' arguments insufficient
to show error in the Examiner's proffered showing of obviousness.
At the outset, I find that the language of representative independent
claim 1 recites a "display matrix," and sets forth a first display device, a
second display device, and a third display device each serially connected via
a daisy chain as the physical structure recited. The language of independent
claim 1 additionally sets forth various "wherein" limitations with one
"wherein" limitation setting forth the structure of the three display devices in
a "matrix" and an additional "wherein" the limitation sets forth
"arrangement information" is transmitted through the daisy chain, but no
details of any processing, storage, or presentation of the arrangement
information with regards to the daisy chain serial communication or the use
of source image are set forth. Dependent claim 2, not separately argued,
recites "each of the display devices stores the arrangement information."
Claim 1 merely sets forth the source image is communicated through each
display device, and the arrangement information is communicated through
each display device serially. 3
With this broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim language, I
address Appellants' arguments.
Appellants argue that independent claim 1 requires:
the first, the second, and the third display devices are serially
connected via the daisy chain, and that the serial daisy chain
connection is utilized for transmitting both the source image
3 Additionally, independent claim 9 is limited to a single display device
( disposed in a matrix) having image transmission interface and a display
panel with intended use limitations which is clearly taught and suggested by
Odagiri.
2
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
and the arrangement information (including total number,
position of each of the display devices in the daisy chain and
arrangement of the matrix) between the display devices.
Stated another way, the daisy chain is capable of
transmitting the source image, the total number of display
devices, the position of each of the display devices in the daisy
chain, and the arrangement of the matrix. Further, the display
devices being connected to the daisy chain can acquire the source
image, the total number, position of each of the display devices
in the daisy chain and arrangement of the matrix merely through
the daisy chain.
(Br. 7).
Appellants further contend that claim 1 and Odagiri are fundamentally
different because Odagiri needs to be equipped with three types of
communication interfaces, but claim 1 requires only a single daisy chain
serial communication interface. (Br. 7-8). Appellants further argue that
claim 1 specifies that the arrangement information and the source image are
transmitted through the daisy chain, but the daisy chain in Odagiri is not
used for transmitting the arrangement information and the source image.
(Br. 8-9).
Appellants further argue that:
A person of ordinary skill in the art knows that the identification
setting execution instruction (representing individual
information only) is fundamentally different from the
arrangement information (including individual and
generic/overall information) and the source image (the video data
to be displayed) as described in claim 1. That is, the information
being transmitted [via] the daisy chain in Odagiri is relatively
limited and communication interfaces other than the daisy chain
are required.
(Br. 10).
3
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
Appellants contend that "[t]he video display apparatuses in Odagiri,
however, do not receive the arrangement information including the total
number, position of each of the first, the second and the third display devices
in the daisy chain and arrangement of the matrix through the daisy chain."
(Br. 10). Appellants further contend that Odagiri discloses that the master
apparatus is the only one being set as the delivery target for the arrangement
information. (Br. 10). Moreover, Appellants contend that "each of the
video display apparatuses other than the master apparatus knows merely the
identification number of itself, but is not aware of the arrangement
information in a comprehensive manner." (Br. 11 ).
I find that although the master apparatus may be the delivery target,
Odagiri nevertheless teaches arrangement information being "transmitted
through the daisy chain," as broadly claimed by Appellants. I would adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in this regard. See Ans. 5, 10-16;
Final Act. 2--4, 6. Appellants' argument fails because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F .2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because
... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."); In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[The] proffered facts ... are
not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.").
Appellants argue "all the display devices in claim 1 receive the
arrangement information including the total number, position of each of the
first, the second and the third display devices in the daisy chain and
arrangement of the matrix, no extra setting procedure is required for the
display devices." (Br. 11 ). Again, Appellants' proffered distinction fails
4
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
because it is not commensurate in scope with the language of independent
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Appellants are arguing the disclosed
invention rather than the language of independent claim 1. (Ans. 9--10). I
agree with the Examiner. The Examiner additionally responds to
Appellants' arguments regarding the communication of the arrangement
information is transmitted through a daisy-chain, and provides a further
detailed discussion of Figures 1, 4, and 16 in light of the broad claim
language in representative independent claim 1. (Ans. 11-15).
Moreover, Appellants rely upon paragraphs 87 and 90 of Odagiri to
support the proposition that the video signal is not transmitted through the
daisy chain between the video display apparatuses. (Br. 11-12).
I find these corresponding disclosures to teach the internal processing
within an individual display 100 which makes up the larger matrix 1000. As
a result, I find the internal processing of a display 100 in the display matrix
does not persuasively support Appellants' proffered distinction of a lack of
serial daisy chain communication between plural display devices of the
multi-screen display matrix apparatus.
Although the Examiner's responses to Appellants' arguments are
brief, I find them sufficient to respond to Appellants' arguments which I find
are not well supported by the language of claim 1.
Additionally, I find the Examiner provides additional interpretations
of the Odagiri reference in the Examiner's Answer with regards to the
disclosed Odagiri "information (data) to be inclusive ofboth video signal
and arrangement information due to , ,r [0081] describing signal as, 'data
(signal)', then in , ,r [0089] specifically describing 'video signal indicating
5
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
an image including information' and, ,r [0309] that describes 'arrangement
information'." (Ans. 16).
Furthermore, the Examiner provides an additional discussion with
regards to Figure 16 of the Odagiri reference. Appellants do not file a Reply
Brief to further respond to the Examiner's clarifications of the interpretation
of the disclosed "information" or data" in the Odagiri reference or the
additional findings regarding Figure 16.
Here, I find Appellants' arguments are conclusory in nature and fail to
address the thrust of the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
"Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record." In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
3 26 F .2d 7 69, 773 ( CCP A 1964) ). This reasoning is applicable here.
On this record, I find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. See In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an Appellant looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
As a result, I find Appellants' arguments and evidence identified by
Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's proffered
combination of Odagiri in view of Panvelwala. I find that Appellants have
not met their burden to show error in the Examiner's application of the prior
art combination as further clarified in the Examiner's Answer. Therefore, I
would sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1 and claims
2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15.4
4 Alternatively and additionally, if Odagiri does not teach or suggest the
serial daisy chain communication between the (matrix) display elements, I
6
Appeal 2018-006376
Application 14/684,541
find the serial daisy chain communication between daisy chain display
devices to be known in the display arts. For example, US 8,723,756 B2
patent issued May 13, 2014 to Kim with a filing date of January 15, 2008.
The Kim patent teaches serial display interfaces daisy chained from one
display monitor to the next which is similar to a matrix display having only
three display elements:
A serial display interface such as the VESA-Display Port
interface is expanded to support daisy chained coupling of one
display monitor to the next. Each daisy chain wise connectable
display monitor ( except optionally the most downstream
one on the daisy chain) has a local daisy chain transceiver device
associated with it where the local transceiver device routes a
selectable one or more video data streams to the local monitor
and the local transceiver device relays on to more downstream
devices of the daisy chain other video data streams. In one
embodiment, the daisy chain wise connectable display monitors
are hot-pluggable and unpluggable.
(Kim abstract; see also Zeng et al. US 8237, 624 B2, issued August 7, 2012,
with a similar disclosure
7