Ex Parte Langendijk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201612741045 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121741,045 05/03/2010 Erno Hermanus Antonius Langendijk 23510 7590 08/02/2016 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mad) 100 East Wisconsin A venue Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 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. 209338-9008-USOO 3460 EXAMINER LUBIT, RYAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): madipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERNO HERMANUS ANTONIUS LANGENDIJK and MICHIEL ADRIAANSZOON KLOMPENHOUWER Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 1 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to a "multiprimary display, which is known as a display with more than the classical 3 additive primaries red, green and blue (e.g. by supplementing a yellow fourth 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TP Vision Holding B.V. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 primary), and ... appropriately driving such a display given an input color to be reproduced." Spec. 1, 11. 2-5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A multiprimary display, comprising: more than 3 additive primaries, wherein at least half of the more than 3 additive primaries having the highest output luminances are generatable by subpixels of the display at approximately equidistant subpixel positions across the display in response to a corresponding driving signal for a respective primary of the more than 3 additive primaries reaching maximal. REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang et al. (US 2008/0049042 Al; Feb. 28, 2008) (hereinafter "Yang") and Cok et al. (US 6,570,584B1; May 27, 2003) (hereinafter "Cok"), collectively referred to as the "combination." ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the April 14, 2014 Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Act. 2-12) and (2) the August 20, 2014 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-16). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. 2 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 (1) Across the display Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Yang and Cok teaches or suggests "at least half of the more than 3 additive primaries having the highest output luminances are generatable by subpixels of the display at approximately equidistant subpixel positions across the display," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 6. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 7-8. As to Yang, Appellants argue it instead teaches having a 2x3 sub-pixel matrix that does not satisfy the "across the display" limitation because repeating the matrix across the display would result in improper side by side occurrences of subpixel configurations (i.e., subpixels having the highest output luminances not being in approximately equidistant subpixel positions). See App. Br. 8-9 (citing Yang Fig. 6a, 10:65-11:22). In other words, repeating Yang's 2x3 matrix for two pixels results in a top row of R-G-B-R-G-B and bottom row of C-M-Y-C-M-Y subpixels,2 where the underlined subpixels (the middle subpixels "B-R" and "Y-C") are highest output luminances subpixels improperly adjacent to each other. See id. According to Appellants, Cok teaches subpixel patterns (e.g., R-C-G-M-B-Y) that similarly do not satisfy the "across the display" limitation because repeating them across the display results in improper side by side occurrences of subpixel configurations. App. Br. 9 (citing Cok Fig. 5). Appellants also argue that modifying the sequence of subpixels (e.g., switching the placement of the G and M subpixels) also does not teach the disputed limitation because the modified pattern would still result in 2 The colors that are represented by their first letter are: red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow. 3 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 columns having combinations of R, M, and B and combinations of C, Y, and G subpixels which are not equidistant. App. Br. 9. In making this argument, Appellants also contend that for claim term "across the display," the broadest reasonable interpretation is to require the claimed subpixel relationship occur in both the horizontal and vertical directions "because the claim language requires that the sub-pixels be 'equidistant' ... [which] is not restricted to direction in any one dimension." Reply Br. 7. Appellants also argue that the Specification supports their construction for "across the display." Reply Br. 7-8 (citing Spec. 3, 11. 3-9 (stating "[t]he skilled person ... understands that 'approximately equidistant subpixel positions' means that the manufacturer tries to divide those high luminance primaries over the grid at equal distances (e.g. for 6 primaries distances Dd equal to 2/6th of the width of a pixel, composed of the 6 subpixels)"); 5, 11. 12-16 (arguing otherwise the claimed invention's purpose would be defeated because "such a higher resolution picture works best if the high luminance primaries are on alternate ... positions, since by driving those between there maximum (e.g. digital value 255) and minimum (0) one can make larger deviations of local output luminance than with the darker primaries"). The Examiner finds that the combination of Cok and Yang teaches the disputed limitation. See Ans. 7-8. The Examiner begins by construing "'across the display' [as] only requir[ing] that the claimed relationship occur in either a horizontal or vertical direction" (i.e., from left to right or from top to bottom of the display). Ans. 7. As to Cok, the Examiner finds it teaches "a display device having a pixel arrangement with color components R, C, G, M, B, Y arranged from left to right ... formed of six sub-pixels adjacent to one another in a single row." Id. at 8 (citing Cok Fig. 5). As to Yang, the 4 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 Examiner finds it teaches "that sub-pixels with the highest brightness (C, G, Y) may be arranged such that they are separated from each other by other sub-pixels." Ans. 8 (citing Yang i-f 154, Figs. 6a, 7). The Examiner then finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to "modify[] Cok to have the equidistant spacing of the highest luminance subpixels, as taught by Yang, [which] ... merely require[ s] switching the placement of the G and M sub-pixels." Id. "In other words, [the Examiner finds] the combination of Yang and Cok teaches at least the following sub- pixel arrangement in a single row of a display from left to right [R, C, M, G, B, Y]." Id. The Examiner thus concludes the combination teaches the disputed limitation. Id. Alternatively, the Examiner also finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Yang's teachings (i.e., having sub- pixels with the highest brightness separated from each other by one other sub-pixel) to Cok' s "entire display surface ... to realize the benefit of Yang along the entire display surface of Cok." Ans. 8. The Examiner thus concludes the combination also teaches the disputed limitation under the construction for "across the display" proffered by Appellants. Id. As to claim construction, we agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation of "across the display" meaning in either a horizontal or a vertical direction. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (providing during examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification). We find Appellants' arguments concerning what the Specification allegedly discloses unpersuasive. For example, Appellants overly rely on the Specification's discussion regarding 5 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 having subpixels positioned equidistant over the grid. Spec. 3, 11. 3-9. Although subpixels can be positioned equidistant over the grid, a row or column of subpixels also can be positioned equidistant across a display. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("The invention disclosed in [the] written description may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim."). This broad reasonable construction is appropriate here. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee."). We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Cok and Yang teach or suggest the disputed limitation. For example, we agree that Cok teaches a display device having a row of pixels formed of six sub-pixels (e.g., R-C-G-M-B-Y) arranged adjacent to one another in a single row. See, e.g., Cok Fig. 5; col. 4, 11. 23-34, 57---61. We also agree Yang teaches having sub-pixels with the highest brightness (e.g., C, G, Y) arranged such that they are separated from each other by other sub-pixels. See Yang i-f 154, Figs. 6a, 7. Furthermore, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's alternative finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Yang's teachings of having bright sub-pixels separated from each other with Cok's teaching of a display device's surface to realize the benefit of Yang over the entire grid of the display. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative 6 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."). Additionally, the above findings and reasoning also apply to similar arguments Appellants make for claims 6 and 7. See App. Br. 15-17. (2) Arguments concerning making the combination Appellants make numerous arguments directed to whether combining Cok and Yang is proper. See App. Br. 10-14, 17-21, 23. These arguments include whether (i) the Examiner improperly failed to consider the invention as a whole, (ii) the Examiner failed to provide a proper motivation to combine Cok and Yang, (iii) the combination provides an unexpected result, and (iv) the combination changes the principle operation of Yang. See id. Appellants argue the Examiner improperly failed to consider the invention as a whole, and instead dissected the claims so that prior art could be applied arbitrarily to teach the limitations. App. Br. 10. Appellants also deny attacking the references separately, and argue they instead provide rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Cok and Yang - "the end results as taught by each reference would not produce the resulting arrangement of sub-pixels." Id. As to a proper motivation, Appellants argue the Examiner failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Cok, which teaches reducing color aliasing, and Yang, which teaches reducing edge color fringe error. See App. Br. 11 (citing Yang i-fi-18, 138). In addition, Appellants argue neither Yang nor Cok teaches Appellants' motivation to increase resolution. App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 3, 1. 24). Furthermore, Appellants contend the claim limitation of positioning the bright subpixels at 7 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 equidistant positions provides an unexpected result of rendering a higher resolution picture. App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue modifying Yang with Cok's teachings would change Yang's principle of operation because Yang would no longer correct just edge color error, but would also "adjust color output in the middle of the display for fringe color error which would likely produce undesirable color output in the image." See App. Br. 14 (citing Yang i-f 138). The Examiner finds the combination of Cok and Yang is properly made. Ans. 9. As to Cok, the Examiner finds it teaches subpixel arrangements to optimize color reproduction. Ans. 10 (citing Cok 4:57-61). As to Yang, the Examiner finds it teaches subpixel arrangements to prevent color error, including by separating high luminance subpixels. Id. (citing Yang i1i18, 138, 188). The Examiner further finds preventing color error is a subset of having optimized color reproduction, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would prefer fewer errors when optimizing color reproduction. Id. Thus, one or ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the teachings of Yang and Cok. See id.; see also supra (making findings relating to Cok and Yang teaching the above disputed limitations); Cok Fig. 5; Yang i-f 154, Figs. 6a, 7. The Examiner further finds Appellants do not provide evidence that the claimed subpixel arrangement provides unexpected results. Ans. 10. The Examiner also notes Cok teaches arranging sub-pixels to optimize resolution. Id. at 12 (citing Cok 4:23-34). The Examiner further finds Cok is modified by Yang's teachings - "the particular arrangement of sub-pixels of Yang to prevent color error are being incorporated into the device of Cok" - rather than vice versa, as Appellants allege. Ans. 13. The 8 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 Examiner concludes "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art ... to modify Cok using the particular arrangement of the brightest subpixels, as taught by Yang, to yield the predictable result of the following order of sub-pixels in a row: R, C, M, G, B, Y." Id. We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants incorrectly focus on the references individually without persuasively addressing how one of ordinary skill would view the combined teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding each reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole."); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 ("[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). We also find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Cok and Yang to prevent color error, which aids in optimizing color reproduction, and would prefer fewer errors. Ans. 10; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (finding it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that 9 Appeal2015-001027 Application 12/741,045 disclosed in Appellants' Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious). We also agree with the Examiner that Appellants do not provide evidence to support their assertions regarding unexpected results. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence."). We also are not persuaded that combining Cok and Yang changes the principle of operation of Yang. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420; see also id. at 421. Additionally, the above findings and reasoning also apply to similar arguments Appellants make for claim 6. See App. Br. 17-21. CONCLUSION Based on our above findings and reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7, as well as claims 2-5, for which Appellants did not provide separate arguments for patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7. 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation