Ex Parte Moore et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 5, 201410883993 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 10/883,993 07/06/2004 Richard L. Moore 2540-0761 5829 42624 7590 12/05/2014 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP 4300 WILSON BLVD., 7TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/05/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICHARD L. MOORE, IAIN HUNTLY-PLAYLE, KENNETH R. CHRISTOFFERSEN, KEVIN M. MCCAFFERTY, GREG BURKE, RUDOLPH J. TIMMERMAN, GREGORY M. GARNER, C. DAVID COVINGTON, and TIMOTHY D. FOSTER ____________________ Appeal 2012-010357 Application 10/883,993 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-010357 Application 10/883,993 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to wireless keyboard, video, and mouse device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. In a wireless keyboard, video, mouse (KVM) system in which a target computer is controlled by a remote computer, the remote computer having a keyboard, a video monitor and a mouse device, and in which operation of the target computer is remotely viewed on the video monitor of the remote computer, and in which the keyboard and mouse device of the remote computer are used to provide keyboard and mouse input to the target computer wirelessly, a method of transmitting video signals from the target computer to the remote computer, comprising: (I) said target computer providing signals representative of analog video data to the remote computer by, at the target computer: (A) converting the analog video data from RGB signals to YUV signals; (B) compressing the YUV signals; and (C) wirelessly providing the compressed YUV signals to the remote computer, wherein the step (B) of compressing comprises: compressing the Y and UV data using a linear interpolation algorithm, and wherein the Appeal 2012-010357 Application 10/883,993 3 compressed YUV signals represent line segments, and wherein the step (C) of wirelessly providing comprises: providing at least some of the endpoints of said line segments using relative coordinates; and (II) said target computer obtaining keyboard and mouse signals from the remote computer, and processing said keyboard and mouse signals. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yamamoto US 5,694,331 Dec. 2, 1997 Arakage US 6,038,347 Mar. 14, 2000 Easwar US 2001/0036231 Al Nov. 1, 2001 Saunders US 2003/0197629 Al Oct. 23, 2003 Coleman US 2004/0042547 Al Mar. 4, 2004 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Saunders and further in view of Yamamoto, and Arakage. Claims 6, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Saunders, Yamamoto, Arakage, and further in view of Easwar. Appeal 2012-010357 Application 10/883,993 4 ANALYSIS At the outset, we note that Appellants present arguments to the claims as a group and do not set forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 1 and 9. (App. Br. 4). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellants' arguments thereto. Furthermore, we note that Appellants present similar arguments in the Reply Brief. Appellants' arguments are summarized as follows: Fundamental differences between the cited references and the various pending claims include: (1) that the cited references do not disclose a computer "converting analog video data from RGB signals to YUV signals" and "compressing the YUV signals," and the cited references (Coleman and Saunders et al.) used are an improper combination, (2) Arakage et al. does not teach or suggest "the compressed YUV signals represent line segments . . . providing at least some of the end point of said line segments using relative coordinates," (3) the cited reference does not disclose "wirelessly providing compressed YUV signals to the remote computer," (4) the cited reference does not disclose "the target computer . . wirelessly providing compressed YUV signals to the remote computer," and (5) the myriad of references are pieced together with impermissible hindsight. (App. Br. 4). The Examiner responds to each of Appellants' arguments in the response to arguments section of the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 2–14). We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the teachings of the Yamamoto reference with respect to enhanced compression algorithms using the YUV data format and sought to take advantage thereof. We further agree with the Examiner's further explanation of the use of the additional references (Saunders and Arakage) Appeal 2012-010357 Application 10/883,993 5 to further buttress the Examiner's implied findings in the teachings of the Coleman and Yamamoto references. (Ans. 13–14). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the Examiner has not relied upon a "myriad of references" which are "pieced together", but rather that the Examiner has provided a reasonable and detailed analysis of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the interrelated teachings of the four prior art teachings to teach and fairly suggest the invention as recited in representative independent claim 1. We find Appellants' Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–13) reiterates the arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and repeats the Examiner's findings and conclusions but does not provide any further a persuasive line of reasoning why the Examiner erred in the conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1 and independent claim 9 and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 11, and 12 grouped therewith. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 are sustained. Appeal 2012-010357 Application 10/883,993 6 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) (2011). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation