Ex Parte Matthijs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

10719881 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte PAUL MATTHIJS and TOM KIMPE
____________________

Appeal 2010-009508
Application 10/719,881
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009508
Application 10/719,881

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
16-32.
1
Claims 1-15 were cancelled. App. Br. 2.
2
We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Introduction
The claims are directed to method and device for avoiding image
misinterpretation due to defective pixels in a matrix display. Spec 1:4-6.
Claim 16, reproduced below with disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
16. Method for avoiding misinterpretation of an image
displayed on a matrix display device due to defective cells in
the matrix display device, whereby the image comprises a
plurality of pixels, the method comprising:
obtaining information on the presence and the location of
the defective cells in said matrix display device, and
on the basis of this information,
modulating the operation of said matrix display device
when displaying said image on said matrix display device and
adapting in this way the image content of the pixels of said
image, corresponding to said defective cells or corresponding
to the pixels in the neighbourhood of said defective cells so as
to emphasize or warn for the presence of said defective cells on
the actual display of said image.

1
The real party in interest is Barco N.V.
2
Throughout the decision, we make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 3, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
Jun. 11, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 13, 2010).
Appeal 2010-009508
Application 10/719,881

3
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 16-19, 22-28 and 31-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aida (JP 59-126967) and Ohara (US
6,529,618 B1). Ans. 4-11.

ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 16 and 25 – 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Aida and Ohara teach or
suggest “modulating the operation of said matrix display device when
displaying said image on said matrix display device and adapting … so as to
emphasize or warn for the presence of said defective cells on the actual
display of said image,” as recited in claim 16.
Appellants contend that Aida merely discloses a method for obtaining
information on the presence and location of defective pixels in a matrix
display but fails to disclose the modulating and adapting limitations of claim
16. App. Br. 6, 9. Appellants further contend that Ohara fails to teach the
“modulating the operation of said matrix display” limitation because it only
relates to determining defects in an image sensing panel that is then used to
mark defects in the second image that is created using the sensing panel.
App. Br. 7. Appellants argue that the second images corrected by the
defects do not correspond to “a display device having such an adaptation of
the pixels of an image whereby the defective cells belong to the display
device, displaying the image” as reciting in claim 16. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that Appellants improperly argue the
references Aida and Ohara separately. Ans. 12, 13. The Examiner asserts
Appeal 2010-009508
Application 10/719,881

4
that Aida is used to “teach[] part of the limitation of emphasizing or warning
for the presence of pixels corresponding to said defective cells on the basis
of the information obtained,” but does not teach doing so on the actual
display device on which the defects are found. Ans. 12. Instead, the
Examiner contends, it is Ohara that teaches “providing information of
defects and using this information to modulate the operation of the display
when displaying the image and adapting the image content to emphasize or
warn for the presence of said defects on the actual display of said image.”
Ans. 12-13. The Examiner finds that Ohara modulates or processes image
signals to show an image (or, broadly construed, a copy of an image) to
display. Ans. 14-15. Thus, according to the Examiner, the display in Ohara
when showing image defects is modulating and adapting an image to present
the defective pixels shown in Fig. 13 of Ohara.
Having reviewed Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred (App.
Br. 5-9; Reply 3-4) and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 11-14), we agree
with Appellants. Although Figure 13 of Ohara displays and marks the newly
discovered defects with arrows or circles (Ohara, col. 19, ll. 12-16, Fig. 13),
the Examiner has not shown that the display system in Ohara marks these
defects on the underlying image shown on the display (see OHara Figs. 13,
14). Although the combination of Ohara and Aida teaches or suggests a
system that provides information on defects for a given display and marks
those defects, the Examiner has not shown that Ohara teaches or suggests
that the resulting corrected image depicted in Fig. 14B displays the position
of the defective pixels with the corrected image. See, e.g., App. Br. 7-8.
We find that Ohara fails to teach “modulating the operation of said
matrix display device when displaying said image on said matrix display
Appeal 2010-009508
Application 10/719,881

5
device and adapting … so as to emphasize warn for the presence of said
defective cells on the actual display of said image” as recited in claim 16.
Based on the foregoing, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16 and 25 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) or of claims 17-22 and 26-30
which depend from claims 16 and 25, respectively.

Independent Claims 23, 31, and 32 – 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
Claims 23, 31, and 32 contain limitations of “adapting in said copy of
said image, the image content of the pixels corresponding to said defective
cells or of the pixels corresponding to the cells in the neighborhood of said
defective cells so as to emphasize or warn for the presence of pixels
corresponding to said defective cells” (App. Br. 9, 11) that are substantially
similar to claim 16 and subject to the same rejection over Aida and Ohara. .
Based on the foregoing, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 23, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) or of claim 24 which depends
from claim 23.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-32 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ELD