Ex Parte Barnhoefer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

12145250 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/145,250 06/24/2008
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
03/03/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulrich T. Barnhoefer
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P5600US9/ APPL:03651 2972
EXAMINER
KHOO, STACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH T. BARNHOEFER, WEI H. YAO, and WEI CHEN
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 10-13, and 15-22, which are the claims
pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to dynamically adapting light
sources for displays by adjusting video signals and determining an intensity
of a backlight on an image-by-image basis. Spec. i-f 3.
1 Appellants identify Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
Claim 1 is illustrative (lettering and emphases added):
1. A system, comprising one or more
integrated circuits, wherein the one or more
integrated circuits are configured to:
receive video image data compnsmg a
sequence of video images;
analyze a color saturation of at least a
portion of the video image data;
predict an increase in an intensity setting of
a light source, which is configured to illuminate a
display that is configured to display a visual
representation of the video image data, wherein the
visual representation is based at least in part on the
color saturation of the video image data;
[L 1] adjust at least a subset of pixels in the
video image data corresponding to a white color
filter based on the color saturation, [L2] wherein
the video image data includes pixels
corresponding to one or more non-white color
filters and pixels corresponding to the white color
filter;
determine the intensity setting of the light
source based on the adjusted pixels; and
incrementally apply the increase in the
intensity setting across at least a subset of video
image data.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 10-13, and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as lacking sufficient written description in the Specification.
Claims 1, 12, 13, and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gonsalves (US 7,684,096 B2; issued Mar. 23, 2010),
Stark (US 5,967,636; issued Oct. 19, 1999), Lee (US 2004/0046725 Al;
2
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
published Mar. 11, 2004), and Kerofsky (US 2006/0119612 Al; published
June 8, 2006).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gonsalves, Stark, Lee, Kerofsky, and Carson (US 2008/0288976 Al;
published Nov. 20, 2008).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gonsalves, Stark, Lee, Kerofsky, and Hannah (US 5,758,091; issued
May 26, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Written Description
The Examiner finds limitation L2 of claim 1 lacks adequate support in
the Specification because, although limitation L2 claims a white color filter
and one or more non-white color filters, the Specification recites a white
color filter and one or more additional color filters. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3.
The disclosed additional color filters, according to the Examiner, "could be
an 'additional white color filter.'" Ans. 2. Thus the Examiner finds the
Specification does not adequately describe the claimed non-white color
filters. Id. The Examiner further rejects independent claims 15-22, which
recite limitations similar to limitation L2, and rejects claims 10-13 based on
their dependence from claim 1. Final Act. 4--7.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in this rejection because:
One skilled in the art would recognize that an LCD
display that includes the white color filter must
include filters having non-white colors as well to
be capable of displaying color content and/or color
saturation rather than mere luminance, which
3
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
would be the only possible result for an LCD
display without non-white color filters.
App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4.
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Our reviewing court
has repeatedly held:
The test for determining compliance with the
written description requirement is whether the
disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor
had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter, rather than the presence or absence
of literal support in the specification for the claim
language ....
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis added).
Applying this principle, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
established a lack of adequate written description in the Specification as a
whole. Rather, the Examiner's finding is tantamount to a finding that the
Specification does not literally recite "non-white color filters." It is not clear
based on the record before us, however, that the Examiner considered what
the disclosure "conveyed with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art"
would include, particularly given the many references to white color and
additional color filters in the Specification. Spec. passim. We further note
the Examiner's finding that the recited additional color filters may
encompass additional white color filters does not preclude the claimed non-
white color filters. To the contrary, the disclosed "additional color filters"
necessarily include both white and non-white color filters.
4
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
10-13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written
description.
Obviousness
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 15-22 as a group. App.
Br. 14. Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Lee teaches or
suggests limitation L 1 because Lee lacks adjusting pixels corresponding to a
white color filter. Id. at 15. According to Appellants, "Lee may teach or
suggest creating or selecting a value for a white color pixel, but Lee is
completely silent regarding adjusting white color pixels .... " Id.
The Examiner finds Lee teaches or suggests limitation L 1 because
when converting from RGB to RGBW (i.e., including white): "First, the data
optimizer 602 distinguishes an achromatic component W o and a chromatic
component Ro, Go and Bo." Final Act. 9; Ans. 6; Lee, i-f 121. Thereafter:
A maximum gray W' of the white pixel WP and
associated grays R', G' and B' of the red, green and
blue pixels RP, GP and BP for a 256 gray LCD are
given by the formulas shown in paragraph [0122].
Since the luminance of the white pixel WP is much
higher than the red, green and blue pixels RP, GP
and BP, it is preferable that the gray of the white
pixel WP is relatively low compared with the grays
of the red, green and blue pixels RP, GP and BP.
In this case, the selected grays of the respective
pixels are determined by Equation 4 ([0127]:
Equation 4 shows the formula for adjusting white
color pixel data; see Equation 4 in [0124]).
Ans. 6; Final Act. 9-10; Lee, i-fi-1122-27. Appellants fail to explain
persuasively in the record before us why the cited change from Wo to W' for
5
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
white pixel WP would not teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art
the adjustment claimed in limitation L 1. To the extent Appellants contend
on reply such adjustment is based on luminance rather than on color
saturation, as claimed, we disagree. Reply Br. 6-7. As Appellants argued in
the context of the Examiner's Section 112 rejection, one of ordinary skill in
the art "would recognize that an LCD display that includes the white color
filter must include filters having non-white colors as well to be capable of
displaying color content and/or color saturation rather than mere
luminance." App. Br. 12. Thus, even if Lee's adjustment were based solely
on luminance, Appellants fail to explain persuasively in the record before us
why adjusting based on luminance would not teach or suggest adjusting
based on color saturation to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly given
such an artisan's recognition of a relationship between luminance and color
saturation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1 and 15-22. Appellants advance no further arguments on claims 12
and 13, which depend from claim 1. App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 13 for the same
reasons explained above.
Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 1. The Examiner rejects these
claims under different combinations of art from that applied to claim 1;
however, the Examiner relies on Lee as teaching or suggesting limitations in
claims 10 and 11 similar to limitation L 1 of claim 1. Final Act. 34--35.
Appellants advance no further arguments on these claims beyond the
arguments set forth above. App. Br. 16-17. Accordingly, we sustain the
6
Appeal2014-002965
Application 12/145,250
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 11 for the same
reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 10-13, and 15-
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 10-13, and 15-
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7