Ex Parte FyeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201410699311 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte JAMES C. FYE _____________ Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before MARC S. HOFF, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-28.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to an apparatus, method, and system for displaying video data from a plurality of video sources. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and are reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for display of video data from a plurality of video sources, the apparatus comprising: a plurality of video channels configured to be coupled to different video sources; a plurality of video decoders coupled to the plurality of video channels, each video decoder coupled to a different one of the plurality of video channels and comprising: an output, and an input coupled to one or more video channels, to receive video data from the one or more video channels, and to decode the received video data; a switch network including an output and an input coupled to the video decoder outputs; a plurality of video processing pipelines, each video processing pipeline including an input coupled to the switch network output, wherein the switch network is configured to connect any of the video decoder outputs to any of the video processing pipeline inputs, and a manual I/O interface in operable communication with the plurality of video processing pipelines, the manual I/O interface configured to provide an option to a user to direct the switch network to connect a specific video decoder output to a particular view window of the apparatus for display. 1 Claim 29 was previously cancelled. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 3 REFERENCES Miyazaki US 5,883,676 Mar. 16, 1999 Reitmeier US 6,118,498 Sept. 12, 2000 Mizutome US 2002/0078447 A1 June 20, 2002 Miura US 6,456,335 B1 Sep. 24, 2002 Reynolds US 2002/0147987 A1 Oct. 10, 2002 Kovacevic US 2002/0150248 Oct. 17, 2002 Itoh US 6,487,719 B1 Nov. 26, 2002 Machida EP 1 158 788 A1 Nov. 28, 2001 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, and Mizutome. Ans. 5-9. Claims 2, 3, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Itoh. Ans. 9-10. Claims 6, 9, 10, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Miyazaki. Ans. 11-12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Reitmeier. Ans. 12- 13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, Reitmeier, and Miyazaki. Ans. 13-17. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 4 Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Reitmeier, Miyazaki, and Mizutome. Ans. 17-18. Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Miura. Ans. 18-19. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Kovacevic. Ans. 19- 20. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Machida, Reynolds, and Mizutome teaches or suggests a plurality of video decoders each coupled to a different one of a plurality of video channels, as required by independent claims 1, 7, and 19? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, Reitmeier, and Miyazaki teaches or suggests a non- blocking network switch, as required by independent claim 14? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Miura teaches or suggests a video fail operation that comprises outputting a previous image of a video channel overlaid with descriptive text indicating video failure, as required by dependent claim 25? Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to modify the systems of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Kovacevic so that the video sources transmit analog video data instead of digital video data, as required by dependent claim 26? Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 5 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 7, and 19 Claims 1, 7, and 19 require a plurality of video decoders each coupled to a different one of a plurality of video channels. The Examiner finds that Reynolds teaches this limitation because Reynolds teaches a plurality of video signals, each of which is routed by a tuner/decoder to a different one of a plurality of decoders. Ans. 21-22. Appellant argues that even though the tuner/decoder routes each video signal to a different decoder, the tuner/decoder couples only one video signal to its respective decoder at a time. App. Br. 11-12. In other words, Appellant argues that Reynolds does not teach the disputed limitation because the tuner/decoder does not simultaneously couple all of the video signals to their respective decoders. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Even assuming that Reynolds’ tuner/decoder does not simultaneously couple all of the video signals to their respective decoders, this fact would be immaterial because claims 1, 7, and 19 do not require simultaneous coupling. Instead, claims 1, 7, and 19 are written broadly enough to encompass both systems in which plural video channels are either sequentially or simultaneously coupled to their respective decoders. Appellant also argues that the video signals in Reynolds are carried over a single video channel rather than different channels. Reply Br. 3-4. We disagree. As the Examiner points out, the term “channel” ordinarily refers to a pathway over which a signal travels. Ans. 22. In Reynolds, multiple video signals travel over different pathways. See Reynolds, Figs. 1- 2. Therefore, the video signals reasonably may be interpreted as traveling over different channels. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 6 We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Reynolds fails to teach the claimed “video channels” because, according to Appellant, Reynolds only teaches signal paths, not video channels. App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant contends that the term “video channels” must be construed as television channels or television signals formatted according to the National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) standard. App. Br. 12. Although Appellant correctly points out that Appellant is entitled to be his own lexicographer (App. Br. 12), Appellant’s Specification must clearly set out Appellant’s uncommon definition of a claim term in order to put one of ordinary skill in the art on notice that the claim term does not carry its ordinary meaning. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the instant case, Appellant’s Specification does not provide a sufficiently specific definition for the term and therefore fails to put one of ordinary skill on notice that the term “video channel” means anything other than what it ordinarily means, i.e., a pathway over which a video signal travels. App. Br. 12. For the reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 19. Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 20-28 Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 20-28 as made for independent claims 1, 7, and 19. App. Br. 13. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 7, and 19. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 7 Claim 14 Claim 14 recites a “non-blocking switch network.” The Examiner finds that the image selection means of Machida corresponds to the claimed “non-blocking switch network” because the image selection means is capable of functioning in a non-blocking manner under certain circumstances. Ans. 23-24. Appellant argues that the screen control means of Machida would have to be modified in order for the image selection means to function in a non-blocking manner. Reply Br. 6. Appellant further argues that such a modification would change the operating principle of the image selection means and/or render the image selection means unfit for its intended purpose. Id. We disagree with Appellant. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 24) that the image selection means is capable of functioning in a non- blocking manner without modification to itself or to the screen control means. Specifically, Machida discloses that the image selection means will not block any video signals if the screen control means determines that the display capabilities (i.e., display resolution and display size) of the device that is to display the video signals are sufficient to simultaneously display all of the video signals. Ans. 24; see also Machida, ¶ 0033. As such, it is not necessary to determine whether the modification proposed by Appellant would render the image selection means unfit for its intended purpose. For the reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 8 Claims 15-18 Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to dependent claims 15-18 as made for independent claim 14. App. Br. 14. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 14. Claim 25 Claim 25 requires a video fail operation comprising outputting a previous image from a video channel overlaid with a descriptive text indicating video failure. The Examiner finds that Miura teaches a first “invalid area operation” (synonymous with the claimed “video fail operation”) comprising outputting a previous image from a video channel, as well as a second invalid area operation comprising outputting descriptive text indicating video failure. Ans. 25. The Examiner further finds that Miura teaches that the first and second invalid area operations can be combined as desired. Id. Appellant argues that Miura’s first and second invalid area operations are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be combined. Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant additionally argues that Miura does not explicitly teach how to combine the first and second invalid area operations. Reply Br. 7. We disagree with Appellant. First, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to support the contention that the operations are mutually exclusive. Second, the Examiner finds (Ans. 25), and we agree, that Miura teaches combining each of the processes by stating “it is possible to appropriately combine the above described embodiments to suit the needs.” Miura, col. 39, ll. 15-16. Third, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 is based on obviousness. Ans. 19. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 9 While we agree with Appellant that Miura does not explicitly describe how to combine the invalid area operations (Reply Br. 7), we find that the combination is nothing more than a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yields predictable results. KSR Int’l Co, v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Additionally, Appellant has not cited to any evidence to support the assertion that the combination would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 25) that Miura suggests combining an image and text to indicate a video fail operation, as required by claim 25. For the reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25. Claim 26 Claim 26 requires the first video data of claim 19 to be analog video data. Appellant argues that there is no motivation to modify the digital signals taught by Machida and Reynolds with the analog signals taught by Kovacevic. App. Br. 16-17. Specifically, Appellant contends that there is “no reasonable chance of success” in processing the analog signals of Kovacevic with the strictly digital processes of Machida and Reynolds. App. Br. 16-17. We do not find these arguments persuasive because Machida clearly teaches using an analog-to-digital converter 213 to convert analog signals to digital signals. See Machida, Fig. 4. Thus, as indicated above, the cited combination would have been nothing more than a Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 10 combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yields predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. For the reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Machida, Reynolds, and Mizutome teaches or suggests a plurality of video decoders each coupled to a different one of a plurality of video channels, as required by independent claims 1, 7, and 19. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, Reitmeier, and Miyazaki teaches or suggests a non- blocking network switch, as required by independent claim 14. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Machida, Reynolds, Mizutome, and Miura teaches or suggests a video fail operation that comprises outputting a previous image of a video channel overlaid with descriptive text indicating video failure, as required by dependent claim 25. The Examiner did not err in finding that it would have been obvious to modify the systems of Machida, Reynolds, and Mizutome so that the video sources transmit analog video data instead of digital video data, as required by dependent claim 26. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. Appeal 2011-009741 Application 10/699,311 11 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). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation