Ex Parte Fye

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

10699311 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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