Ex Parte Hochmuth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

09941254 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROLAND M. HOCHMUTH, JOHN MARKS,
and ROBERT P. MARTIN
____________

Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,2541
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,254

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-14, and 19-27, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. Claims 6-8 and 15-18 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to communicating graphics
images over a computer network. See Spec. 1:9-10.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for communicating graphics across a
computer network from a source computer, said apparatus
comprising:
a connector;
an input for receiving a video signal output from a
graphics card of the source computer through the connector;
a memory for storing discrete units of the video signal;
a compression circuit for compressing a plurality of the
discrete units into a compressed video signal; and
a network interface circuit coupled to the compression
circuit, the network interface circuit to format the compressed video
signal into a plurality of Internet Protocol (IP) packets and to
communicate the IP packets over the computer network, wherein the
input, memory, compression circuit, the network interface circuit, and
the connector are contained on a single card, and wherein the single
card is to be directly plugged into a slot of the source computer
through the connector.

Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,254

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 9-12, 19-21, 23, 26, and 27 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hendricks (US 6,675,386 B1,
Jan. 6, 2004) and Gubbi (US 6,891,822 B1, May 10, 2005); and
2. Claims 13, 14, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hendricks, Gubbi, and Boe (US Patent Pub.
2002/0109975 A1, Aug. 15, 2002).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12-14, and 19-27
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Hendricks and Gubbi teaches and/or suggests the input, memory,
compression circuit, the network interface circuit, and the connector are
contained on a single card, as set forth in claim 1?

Appellants contend that “although Gubbi discloses a memory 20 as
part of a server 12, nowhere does Gubbi teach or suggest that the NIC 14
includes a memory. . . . Gubbi indicates that memory 20 is unrelated to NIC
14” (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend that “the proposed
modification would remove the ability of the website 140 in Hendricks to
Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,254

4
locally store the data received from the compression circuit 136, thus
rendering Hendricks unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner found that “Gubbi discloses a single card, e.g. item
#14, comprising a processor, i.e. network interface circuit and a compressor
circuit” (Ans. 24).
Here, the dispositive issue turns on whether the combined teachings of
Hendricks and Gubbi disclose a “single card” containing various
components and such a single card being directly plugged into a slot of a
source computer. Essentially, Appellants contend that a “memory” is
missing from the “single card”, i.e., the NIC 14 of Gubbi, and that memory
20 is a separate component (see App. Br. 10; see also Gubbi’s Fig. 1).
While Gubbi’s Figure 1 does appear to illustrate a memory 20 as a
separate component from the NIC 14, Gubbi also discloses that “NIC 14
[network interface card] generally includes a processor unit 34 . . . and a
video/audio compression block 36” (Gubbi, col. 4, ll. 19-22). Gubbi further
discloses that “[l]ike the NIC 14, the client unit 26 includes a processor 60
and associated memory . . . 62 coupled by a bus 64” (Gubbi, col. 6, ll. 15-
18). In other words, while Figure 1 of Gubbi does not explicitly illustrate a
memory included in NIC 14, the description of Gubbi’s NIC 14 suggests that
it is not limited to those elements listed (i.e., generally includes) and Gubbi’s
description of the client unit 26 suggests that an associated memory is also
provided in NIC 14. Therefore, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive
that “nowhere does Gubbi teach or suggest that the NIC 14 includes a
memory” for at least the reasons noted supra.
Similarly, Hendricks discloses:
As shown in FIG. 3A, a computer 134 is connected to a remote
camera 104. . . . The video may be processed and stored in the
Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,254

5
computer. . . . The computer 134 may either contain a
compressor or be connected to an external compression unit
136. The video from cameras 104' and 104'' is compressed and
provided to data communications network 120.
(Hendricks, col. 6, l. 65 to col. 7, l. 11).
In other words, Hendricks discloses a computer connected to a remote
camera whereby the computer may store video data (i.e., may have memory)
and may contain a compressor. As such, we find that both Hendricks and
Gubbi suggest a single card including a memory and various other
components, as claimed. Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not take into
account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)). This
reasoning is applicable here. We find that the combined teachings of
Hendricks and Gubbi would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art that a “single card” could include an input, memory, compression circuit,
a network interface circuit, and a connector, as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosure of Hendricks and Gubbi, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,254

6
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 9, 10,
12-14, and 19-27 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Claim 11
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Hendricks and Gubbi teach and/or suggest “to format and communicate
IP packets of separately compressed video signals to different remote
computers,” as set forth in claim 11?
Appellants contend that Hendricks “fail[s] to disclose anything related
to a network interface circuit to format and communicate ‘IP packets of
separately compressed video signals to different remote computer . . . ’”
(App. Br. 16).
The Examiner found that in Hendricks “[t]he received compressed
video signal based on the user’s control command is separately compressed
at the compression unit and transmitted to the remote users via the website”
(Ans. 35). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Hendricks discloses that “the computer is connected to
multiple remote cameras 104' and 104'' so that multiple users may each
control a camera. The computer 134 may either contain a compressor or be
connected to an external compression unit 136” (Hendricks, col. 7, ll. 5-9).
In other words, Hendricks’ system transmits compressed video signals to a
plurality of remote computers via a website (see Fig. 3B). Therefore, we
find that the claimed “format and communicate IP packets . . . to different
remote computers” reads on Hendricks’ multiple remote cameras
functionality.
Appeal 2013-001482
Application 09/941,254

7
Thus, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of dependent claim 11 for essentially the same reasons argued by the
Examiner.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) .

AFFIRMED

babc