Ex Parte Church

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13361458 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/361,458 01/30/2012 Kenneth H. Church P09868US01 7433
133690 7590 12/22/2016
Goodhue, Coleman & Owens, P.C.
650 S. Prairie View Dr.
Suite 125, PMB #209
West Des Moines, IA 50266
EXAMINER
QUIETT, CARRAMAH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
docketing @ goodhue. com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
US PTO @ dockettrak. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH H. CHURCH
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to methods and
techniques of utilizing flat screen displays to emulate a window.
Spec. 1:9-10.
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 11 are exemplary and reproduced below:
1. A flat screen display window system, comprising:
a flat screen video display;
a window frame operatively connected to the flat screen
video display, the window frame and flat screen video display
configured to simulate an appearance of a window by
positioning the window frame around the flat screen video
display to frame the flat screen video display;
a video source operatively connected to the flat screen
display to provide a video signal to the flat screen display.
11. A flat screen display window system, comprising:
a flat screen display;
a window frame, the flat screen display mounted within the
window frame, the window frame and flat screen display
configured to simulate an appearance of a window;
a camera operatively connected to the flat screen display,
the camera configured to acquire video imagery for display on
the flat screen display.
C. REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Ratti et al. US 2006/0107616 A1 May 25, 2006
Long et al. US 2008/0088624 Al Apr. 17, 2008
Claims 1—10, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Long and Ratti.1
1 This § 103 rejection includes claim 15 which was erroneously omitted
from the explicit statement of the rejection, but was addressed in the detailed
rejection. (Final Act. 6, 9).
2
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
Claims 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Long.2
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Long and Ratti discloses and suggests a “window
frame and flat screen video display configured to simulate an appearance of
a window,” as recited in claim 1.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Long
1. Long discloses a method for adding view changes due to parallax
shift and field of view changes to virtual windows made using flat panel
displays, thereby greatly enhancing the illusion of looking through a real
window. 135.
2. A virtual window is constructed by acquiring digital images for use
with a flat-panel display device. 1 37.
3. In Long, for a real-world landscape scene, wall 26 comprises a
window opening 28, wherein an individual observer standing in front of
window 28 would view the portion of the landscape 20 bounded by box 22a.
135; Figs. 1—6.
2 This § 102 rejection also includes claim 14 which was erroneously omitted
from the explicit statement of the rejection, but was addressed in the detailed
rejection. (Final Act. 5, 6).
3
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
4. Long discloses that it is known to use flat panel displays as virtual
windows, where a panel display is built within what appears to be a
conventional window frame. 14.
Ratti
5. Ratti discloses shop windows including displays with video-
sourced digital image content. || 47, 50.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1—10, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As to claim 1, Appellant contends:
Claim 1 recites “a flat screen video display.” The display of Ratti
et al. is not a video display but instead is merely used for
controlling opacity. One skilled in the art would not have been
led to combine Ratti et al. with Long et al. because Ratti et al.
does not teach a video display.
(App. Br. 11).
Appellant further contends:
[Njeither reference nor the combination of references teaches or
makes obvious a window frame and flat screen video display
configured to simulate an appearance of a window. Ratti et al. is
a window and thus does not simulate appearance of a window.
Long et al. also fails to teach using a window frame to simulate
appearance of a window. Therefore, the combination of
references is deficient and these rejections should be reversed.
(Id.)(emphasis omitted).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims. Based on the record before us, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 is obvious over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Long and Ratti.
4
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054—1055 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the
Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the
Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Ratti discloses windows including displays with video-sourced digital
image content (FF 5). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s contention (App.
Br. 11), giving the term its broadest, reasonable interpretation, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding Ratti’s window displays of video-sourced digital
image content teaches or at least suggests a “flat screen video display.”
(Final Act. 3—4, Ans. 4).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner finds,
Long’s digital images used in the flat-panel device of the virtual window
also teaches a “flat screen video display.” (FF 2, Final Act. 4, Ans. 3—4). In
particular, Long discloses virtual windows, made of flat panel displays to
enhance the illusion of looking through a real window (FF 1—3). Thus,
although Appellant contends Ratti “does not simulate appearance of a
window,” and Long “fails to teach using a window frame” to simulate
appearance of a window (App. Br. 11), Appellant cannot attack the
references separately when the rejection is based on a combination of
references, and what the combination would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Here, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance
on the combination of Long and Ratti for teaching and suggesting the
5
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
disputed limitation “the window frame and flat screen video display
configured to simulate an appearance of a window.” (Final Act. 4,
Ans. 3—4).
Although Appellant contends Long fails to teach using “a window
frame” (App. Br. 11), we find no error with the Examiner finding that Long
teaches “a wall 26 having a window opening 28,” wherein the area around
Long’s window opening 28 creates a “window frame” (Ans. 3). We note
that Appellant provides no specific definition for a “window frame” in the
Specification. On the record before us, we are unpersuaded that the
Examiner’s interpretation of “window frame” as an area around a window
opening (i.e., framing/surrounding the opening) (id.) is overly broad or
unreasonable. In fact, in support of the Examiner’s position, we note Long
discloses that placing flat panel displays, used as virtual windows, within a
“conventional window frame,” is well-known in the art (FF 4).
On this record, we are not persuaded of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding obviousness of the contested limitations of claim 1 over
the combination of cited prior art references. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
For similar reasons, we are unconvinced by Appellant’s contentions
regarding claim 5 that neither reference teaches a “simulated window.”
(App. Br. 12). We agree with the Examiner’s finding concerning claim 5
because Long’s virtual windows, made to greatly enhance the illusion of
looking through a real window, teach or at least suggest the disputed
limitation “simulated window.” (FF 1, Final Act. 8).
6
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
As Appellant has not provided separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2—4, 6—10, 13, and 15, rejected on the same basis as
claim 1, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
As to independent claim 11, Appellant repeats, “Long et al. makes no
reference to a window frame.” (App. Br. 10).
Appellant further contends:
Not only does claim 11 not disclose a window frame, Long et al.
does not disclose a flat screen display mounted within the
window frame as recited in claim 11.... Essentially, Long et al.
reproduces a view from a window on a flat screen display. Long
et al., does not reproduce a window through use of a window
frame to simulate the appearance of a window.
(Id.) (emphasis omitted).
However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Long for disclosing “window frame.” (LL
Ans. 2—3). We also find no error in the Examiner’s finding regarding
Long’s use of flat panel displays being built within virtual windows disclose
“a flat screen display mounted within the window frame, the window frame
and flat screen display configured to simulate an appearance of a window,”
as recited in claim 11. See id.
On this record, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 11. As Appellant has
not provided separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 12,
and 14, rejected on the same basis as claim 11, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
7
Appeal 2016-000926
Application 13/361,458
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—10, 13
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 11,12 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8