Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 5, 2014

10883993 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014)

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