Commissioner's Decision
Sufficiency of Disclosure, Obviousness
The description of the elements and their combination to transmit graphic
instructions from one station to another simultaneously without the need
for a computer central to all stations was considered acceptable in view
of applicant's arguments. None of the cited art showed applicant's
interlinking satellite terminal system, which he noted was being used
by others in the art under licence. Rejection withdrawn.
This decision deals with the applicant's request for review by the
Commissioner of Patents of the Final Action on application 297,338 (class
375-53) filed February 20, 1978. It is assigned to Her Majesty in right of
Canada as represented by the Department of Communications, and is entitled
INTERACTIVE VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM. The inventors are Herbert G.
Bown and C. Douglas O'Brien. The Examiner in charge issued a Final Action
on November 30, 1982 refusing to allow the application. A Hearing was held
on April 1, 1987, at which the inventors were present, and were represented
by their Patent Agent Mr, E. Rymek.
The application relates to a visual communications system interlinking two
or more similar terminals, as shown in figure 2 reproduced below. The
system produces a common picture at all terminals by transmitting only
picture change instructions to all terminals simultaneously. At a
terminal, say 10, instructions are generated at the input device 14 for
changes to display 13, and pass through a graphic task instructions forming
component 17 and interaction handler 16 to processor 18, and via modem 11
and a narrow bandwidth channel connection (e.g. telephone) to the
comparable components in each other terminal. In this way, each operator
sees instantly any revision made at any terminal.
(See formula 1)
In the Final Action, the following patents were cited:
Canada
958,490 Nov. 26, 1974 Arnold et al
United States
3,534,338 Oct. 13, 1970 Christensen et al
3,539,999 Nov. 10, 1970 Houldin et al
3,633,169 Jan. 4, 1972 Bickford
3,833,889 Sept. 3, 1974 Cray
3,350,689 Oct. 31, 1967 Underhill et al
3,794,983 Feb. 26, 1974 Sahin
The Examiner outlines the relevancy of the above patents to Applicant's
device, in part, as follows:
...
Arnold et al discloses a multi-terminal interconnected computer
system wherein each processor is able to interact with any
other processor or peripheral equipment or memory location.
Terminals are connected via telephone lines.
...
CHRISTENSEN et al shows it is old to have a network of a
multitude of graphics display terminals, each one of those
terminals being endowed with its own computer (central
processor, display processor, local input devices etc.). In
addition, each terminal has access also to a central computer.
CHRISTENSEN et al, too, concerns itself with bandwidth
reduction (see column 3 lines 64-59; column 4 lines 13-20), by
allocating some computing capacity at the individual stations
while retaining some computing capacity at the central station.
CHRISTENSEN et al also discloses the compressing of data by
coding, so as to have a small amount of coded data represent a
larger amount of uncoded data (columns 7-11; column 17 lines
1-60 etc.) similar to applicant's "GTI"-s.
...
HOULDIN et al shows that the idea of transmitting graphics data
from a single source to a multitude of display terminals is
old.
HOULDIN et al also discloses coding i.e. compression of data,
so as to have a small amount of coded data represent a larger
amount of uncoded data, similar to applicant's "GTI"-s column
1 lines 56-64 etc.)
...
BICKFORD shows the mere idea of maintaining the same display at
several data terminals is old. BICKFORD's displays are also
interactive: Any one of the terminals is also able to modify
the display at all other terminals.
BICKFORD differs from the applicant in that BICKFORD uses a
central computer, and the applicant does not.
...
CRAY discloses interaction or exchange of data between a
multitude of processors (see column 1 line 17, line 67 etc.).
Elaborate data structure and apparatus structure to carry out
this interchange is disclosed.
...
UNDERHILL et al shows it is old to connect several processors
together interactively, without a central computer.
UNDERHILL et al shows that intricate complex apparatus is
required to interconnect several processors together.
...
SAHIN discloses interactive networks of thousands of processors
without a central computer. Elaborate circuits are disclosed
to make this interaction possible.
The Applicant responded to the objection made in view of the cited art, by
discussing the references, in part, as follows:
...
CHRISTENSEN et al does not teach a system where an operator
interacting with one terminal also interacts with all of the
other terminals... a system in which the satellite terminals
are linked to one another by telephone lines or other
communication links... a system in which all data is
transmitted from one satellite terminal to all other satellite
terminals... a system in which the satellite terminals are
allocated all of the computing capacity. The Christensen et al
patent does not and can not teach the above since its only
direction is to provide a central computer which is time-shared
between a number of satellite terminals.
...
BICKFORD teaches a communications system in which a large
number of stations are connected "in a series connected
transmission loop"...such as airline reservation terminals -
which when they come on-line, interact with a central computer
10 through the communication loop to receive data from the
central computer (flight information) and to transmit data to
the central computer (reservation requests). These remote
terminals do not interact with one another to maintain a common
image.
...
HOULDIN et al, describes a multiple alpha-numeric and graphic
display system in which the N displays are connected to a
single data source (to provide) data for each individual
display through temporary registers. A single character or end
point generator is used to convert this data to control the
individual displays. The displays do not interact with one
another, they do not have a common image and they are all
controlled from a central computer.
None of (the remaining) references teach a system in which all
terminals maintain identical displays at all times by
simultaneously receiving and processing in an identical manner
the instructions generated by an operator interaction at one of
the terminals. Simultaneity is the key to the present
invention, not an elaborate structure to determine which
terminal goes into which state.
...
ARNOLD et al is similar to a telephone exchange which routes
different messages to different peripheral terminals. (It)
includes a description of a complicated apparatus structure and
timing diagrams required to communicate between terminals.
Methods of communicating over a narrow band telephone line are
well known through the use of apparatus known as modems. In
the present invention, a new type of modem is not being
claimed, but such standard devices are being used to link the
terminals.
...
CRAY presents complicated structure to process computer
programs in parallel on different processors and is a central
computer only. It in no way describes or infers an interactive
visual communications system.
...
SAHIN is not an array of processors but of memory modules and
bears no relation to the claimed interactive visual
communication system.
...
UNDERHILL et al does not teach a system in which an operator
instruction at one terminal will result in identical
interactions with all of the terminals.
...
Concerning insufficiency of disclosure, the Applicant refers to the
response of January 26, 1982 and the publications accompanying it. He
argues that they include the information, terminology, and apparatus
available at the time of the invention, and that the application provides
sufficient description to enable the making of the invention. Applicant
discusses one of the articles submitted, "The Art of Natural Graphic
Man-Made Communication", with respect to graphic task instructions, GTI,
and their formation. The Applicant identifies parts of pages 12 and 13 of
the application as relating the interaction handler arrangement. Also
explained are the number of coders/decoders needed when the interaction
handler is used with the terminals of the drawings. He says that when an
operator's input is converted in component 17, the handler 16 directs the
GTI to the processor in that terminal and simultaneously to all processors
in all terminals. The Applicant refers to a description of this action,
page 7 line 27 to page 9 line 13. Reference is made to conventional coding
elements using Standard coding techniques, such as procedures found in the
publication ANSI XZ3.28 - 1976 submitted January 26, 1982. Other of the
submitted publications are identified to illustrate that the components
outlined by the application find exemplification in practice. Applicant
argues that in view of the disclosure and the availability of the
information prior to the inventors' particular combination of components,
there is provided sufficient information to enable a person skilled in the
art to make, construct or use the invention. Applicant considers the novel
arrangement of knows elements provides an inexpensive communications system
which provides to individuals at different locations a common picture that
may be altered by any one of them and viewed by all simultaneously.
The issue before the Board is whether or not the application presents
sufficient disclosure under Section 36(1) of the Patent Act, and whether or
not the subject matter of the application is obvious in view of the cited
art. Claim 1 reads:
An interactive visual communications system for maintaining
identical visual pictures at a number of terminals linked by
narrow bandwidth transmission lines, each of said terminals
comprising:
- visual display means;
- input means for providing input instructions at
said terminal;
- means coupled to the input means for converting
said instructions to graphic task instructions;
- interaction handler means coupled to the
converting means for receiving and for transmitting
the graphic task insructions over the narrow
bandwidth transmission lines to one or more further
terminals, and for receiving graphic task
instructions generated at the one or more further
terminals over the narrow bandwidth transmission
lines; and
- processor means coupled to the interaction
handler means for receiving the converter graphic
task instructions, for processing the graphic task
instructions and coupled to the display means for
controlling the display means to modify and
maintain the picture on the display means in
accordance with said graphic task instructions.
We are impressed by the explanation provided by Mr. Rymek and the inventors
at the Hearing. Mr. Rymek draws attention to the early use of the
invention by the inventors, notably in the development stages of
interstation telecommunication, such as in the Telidon system. He
emphasizes the concept of the invention, as being to transmit the least
amount of data and yet present all the relevant information that is
necessary to control the simultaneous display at each terminal. He argues
that the cited references are not directed to a common display at all
terminals. He classifies the references into two categories, (1) those
describing systems having a central computer to control satellite
terminals, for example, the Christensen, Bickford, and Houldin et al
patents, (2) the remainder describing systems having multiple process
computers linked together to perform complex data processing operations.
He explains that none of the cited references teach, suggest, or infer
Applicant's system. In noting that Applicant's system is being exploited
under licence, he argues forcefully that such licencing would not take
place in the industry if the technology is obvious to those persons working
with it who are skilled in the art.
Mr. Rymek believes Applicant's disclosure contains the elements essential
to an understanding of the invention by persons skilled in the art. He
contends that persons with expertise in the art would be capable of
assembling the system without excessive experimentation. Mr. O'Brien
indicates that other telecommunication devices might be used to carry out
the function represented by the modem set out in the disclosure, and refers
to the general use of modems, for example in telecommunication systems such
as used by Northern Telecom.
Mr. Bown describes the function carried out by the interaction handler
as being to monitor the general base system of the terminal. Its purpose,
he notes, is to act as an interface between each terminal and the
communications network. This makes use of the GTI, and from the
information they provide, the form of what has occurred at an initiating
terminal is obtained. A main purpose of the interaction handler, he
explains, is to be aware of what communication exists on one side, and what
is happening on the other side concerning user input, and to help
communicate that information through all the terminals of the system, and
he refers to figure 5, which is reproduced below.
(See formula 1)
In figure 5, Mr. Bown says the purpose is to take the input action at the
top part of the diagram and communicate certain status information to the
program in the lower part of the figure. He adds that the information then
flows through the modem to the system. In effect, he says the interaction
handler is a central part of the system where all communications flow in
and out. It is, in his view, a combination of hardware and software
components. Ae believes that the disclosure adequately sets out sufficient
components to enable the disclosed combination of elements to be used by a
person skilled in the art to obtain satisfactory operation.
Mr. O'Brien reinforces Mr. Bown' views by pointing out that the
interaction handler essentially keeps the encoding numbering straight
during receipt and issuance of any interaction to ensure the same thing is
done at the same time.
Mr. Bown emphasizes that the GTI do not require a full video band width
communication system to work, thus reducing costs. He notes that by using
the instructions contained in the GTI, graphical information may be
exchanged between a number of stations without using large band width
systems.
Mr. Bown explains that in the art pertaining to an air lines ticketing
system, the information is made available to the terminal on the basis of
it being called to be viewed there, and not elsewhere. Such a system he
notes is asynchronous in that it does not permit the change of information
that is made at one terminal to be seen at another terminal. He stresses
the synchronous nature of the present system that presents not only the
same image at all terminals, but also permits any change made at any screen
to be updated and displayed simultaneously there and at all others. Mr.
Bown relates his observations about the two systems on the basis that he
has worked on the design of each, and in his view the two are totally
different. He says the system of the application will produce changes on
each screen at the same time, something that is not possible in an air
lines ticketing system.
Mr. Rymek feels that Applicant's disclosure distinguishes sufficiently
between what is essential and what may be extra. He believes all the
necessary information has been provided to enable a person skilled in the
art to practice the invention with no extensive experimentation. He
comments the disclosure need not provide all the information of what would
be interesting, or could or would be used with Applicant's system.
We have studied the Examiner's characterization of some of the
Applicant's disclosed apparatus as being blank boxes, and his concern that
the application is not complete with respect to their parts. Against that,
we have weighed the Applicant's written arguments and the oral explanation
by the inventors that their arrangement of elements represents an
understandable grouping of components. The inventors' statements, in our
opinion, crystallize their disclosed structures as forming an acceptable
combination of elements that permits the use of a narrow-band wavelength
channel to transmit graphic instructions from one station to another
simultaneously without need for a computer central to them all. We are
persuaded by the inventors' explanation that the various structures and
their make up and functions as set forth by the description and drawings in
the application are not in the category of a blank box. We are satisfied,
therefore, that the disclosure contains a description of the invention
which is sufficient, in view of Section 36(1) of the Patent Act, to permit
persons skilled in the art to practice the invention.
We now turn to the cited art, and consider those cited patents Mr. Rymek
places in his first category. The Christensen et al patent presents an
interactive system in which a central computer is time-shared between a
number of stations. We find no description of any interaction between the
stations. The Bickford patent discloses a type of system used by airlines
for making information in a central computer available to a number of
stations in a communication loop. No provision is described to permit
the stations to interact with one another whereby a common display occurs.
The Houldin et al patent relates to a multiple graphic and alphanumeric
display system. Individual displays are controlled and provide different
images. We find no means to obtain an interaction of the displays with one
another.
We now look at the information provided by the patents in the second
category as grouped by Mr. Rymek. The Arnold patent relates to a telephone
exchange that transmits information to different terminals. The Cray
patent describes a system using a central computer and provides no
interactive visual communication system. The Sahin intercommunication
system causes an exchange of information between a plurality of memory
nodules but provides no means for interactive visual communication. The
Underhill et al patent pertains to a transfer system for interconnecting a
plurality of computers and synchonizing the memories of the computers. We
find no description related to producing an interactive visual
communication system. We are satisfied that none of the references,
whether considered singly or together, pertain to Applicant's system of
interlinking satellite terminals to produce a common display simultaneously
responsive to change instructions from any of the terminals.
We recommend therefore that the rejection of the application for containing
insufficient description and for being directed to subject matter that is
obvious in view of cited art, be withdrawn.
During a discussion of the claims at the Hearing, the relevance of the
terms "maintaining" in the preamble and "maintain" in the second last line
of claim 1, raised some questions. Subsequent to the Hearing, Mr. Rymek
submitted proposed amendments to the claims on April 10, 1987. In the
preamble of claim 1, he suggests "maintaining" be replaced by "continously
producing", and that in the definition of the processor means in claim 1,
the "converter" be replaced by "converting means", and that an additional
limitation be added thereafter by changing the term to read "and the
graphic task instructions received from the one or more further terminals."
In our view, the amendments clarify the operation,and the above changes to
claim 1, and the other changes to claims 2, 3 and 4 are acceptable in view
of the system's operation.
We further recommend that the amendments to claims 1 to 4 be accepted.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and the recommendations of the Patent Appeal
Board. Accordingly, I withdraw the final action and I remand the
application for prosecution consistent with the recommendations.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Date at Hull, Quebec
This 10thday of June 1987
Edward Rymek
Canadian Patents & Development Ltd.
275 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0R3