CLAUDE COX et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2021

2020004685 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021)

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.
14/290,361 05/29/2014 CLAUDE LANO COX 016295.5038 9676
163866 7590 10/14/2021
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
PATENT DEPARTMENT
98 SAN JACINTO BLVD., SUITE 1500
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2021 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):
jennifer.k.smith@bakerbotts.com
juli.tran@BakerBotts.com
tracy.engberg@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDE LANO COX, LIAM B. QUINN,
MARK W. WELKER, and ROCCO ANCONA
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE ERIC B. CHEN, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dell Products L.P. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The instant application relates to a method and system for controlling
monitor display brightness using an ambient light sensor of a mobile device.
Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (claim language at issue italicized for emphasis):
1. A method for monitor brightness control comprising:
connecting with a mobile communication device via a dock, the
mobile communication device including a display, a processor, a
memory, and a sensor configured to detect a lighting condition
of an environment surrounding the mobile communication
device;
linking the dock with a monitor, the monitor being separate from
the mobile communication device;
detecting, based on light information received from the sensor of
the mobile communication device, that the lighting condition has
changed compared to a previously detected lighting condition;
in response to the change in the lighting condition, matching the
lighting condition with a monitor brightness setting in a
brightness look-up-table, the brightness look-up-table including:
a plurality of lighting conditions each matched to a
corresponding one of a plurality of monitor brightness
settings, the plurality of lighting conditions and values
of the corresponding monitor brightness settings with
which they are matched being based at least on
brightness settings of the display of the mobile
communication device under the same or similar
lighting conditions; and
adjusting a brightness level of the monitor based on the
monitor brightness setting matched to the lighting
condition.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lee US 2008/0186393 A1 Aug. 7 2008
Ricci US 2013/0167159 A1 June 27, 2013
Weber US 2015/0229919 A1 Aug. 13, 2015
REJECTION
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–20 103 Ricci, Weber, Lee

OPINION
Background
The instant application describes adjusting the brightness of a display
monitor based on ambient lighting conditions. Spec. ¶ 5. The display
monitor does not have a light sensor to detect ambient lighting conditions;
however, the display monitor is connected, via a dock, to a mobile device
that has a light sensor. Id. In response to the mobile device light sensor
detecting a change in ambient lighting, the new lighting condition is
matched with a display monitor brightness setting in a lookup table. Id. The
brightness setting obtained in the lookup table is used to adjust the
brightness level of the display monitor. Id.
In one embodiment, the display brightness values in the lookup table
may be based on the brightness settings of the mobile device. Spec. ¶ 35.
For example, if a user has certain brightness level preferences for their
mobile device display, such preferences may be used to define brightness
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361

4
settings for the display monitor in similar ambient conditions. Id. This
ensures that “for the same or similar environmental lighting conditions . . .
the brightness of [the] monitor [] may be similar to the brightness of [the]
display of [the mobile] device.” Id.
Discussion
The issue in this appeal is whether the combined prior art teaches or
suggests the following limitation of independent claim 1 (and similar
recitations of independent claims 8 and 15): “the plurality of lighting
conditions and values of the corresponding [monitor] brightness settings
with which they are matched being based at least on brightness settings of
the display of the mobile communication device under the same or similar
lighting conditions.” Appellant submits that the combination of prior art, at
best, teaches a lookup table for matching lighting conditions with brightness
of a display, but there is no teaching or suggestion that the match is based on
the brightness settings of a mobile device separate from the monitor.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that we should therefore reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. Id. at 9–12. For reasons that
follow, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
We agree with Appellant that the monitor brightness control settings
in the claimed lookup table must be based on brightness control settings of a
mobile device display that is separate from the monitor. Appeal Br. 14;
Reply Br. 3. The claims expressly specify this requirement. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 14 (Claim App.) (claim 1 reciting a “monitor” and a “mobile
communication device including a display,” wherein “the monitor [is]
separate from the mobile communication device”). The Examiner has not
presented a combination of the cited references that teaches or suggests
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361

5
using the brightness control settings of a mobile device to determine
brightness control settings for the display monitor.
Ricci discloses a mobile device connected via a dock to an external
display, wherein the mobile device includes at least two operating systems.
Ricci ¶¶ 10–12, 116, Fig. 1 (Mobile OS 130, Desktop OS 160). One
operating system is a mobile OS. Id. ¶ 116. Because a mobile OS has
limited functionality specifically designed to accommodate the capabilities
of a mobile device display, the mobile OS may not be well-suited to the
capabilities of an external, full-size display. Id. ¶ 113–115. Therefore,
Ricci’s mobile device also includes a second OS designed for operating the
external display to which the mobile device is connected. Id. ¶ 116.
However, Ricci does not teach controlling the brightness of the external
display. Final Act. 3–4 (acknowledging “Ricci does not teach” “adjusting
brightness level of the monitor based on the monitor brightness setting”);
Reply Br. 4–5 (e.g., “The Ricci reference is silent in terms of any mention of
display monitor brightness or monitor brightness control.”) (emphasis
omitted).
Lee teaches controlling the brightness of a monitor based on ambient
lighting conditions. Lee discloses a lookup table that matches ambient
lighting conditions with monitor display brightness settings. Lee ¶¶ 53–56,
Tables 1, 2; Ans. 9. However, as Appellant points out, the monitor
brightness settings in Lee are not based on brightness settings of a separate
mobile device to which the monitor is docked. Appeal Br. 11. Rather, Lee’s
lookup table is based on a mathematical model based on data gathered in a
laboratory setting in which users indicated perceived brightness of displays
under various ambient lighting conditions. Lee ¶¶ 48–53.
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361

6
Weber does not fill the gaps of Ricci and Lee. Weber relates to
changing the color temperature of pixels of a light-emitting diode (LED)
monitor. Weber (57). Weber explains that, over time, the color of pixels in
LED backlit monitors drift, leading to color distortion that requires
correction. Id. ¶ 2. Weber teaches using a mobile phone to detect the colors
displayed on a LED monitor, e.g., by using the phone to take a picture of the
monitor. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. The data regarding the detected colors is used to
adjust the LED monitor display colors. Id. ¶ 21. As Appellant points out,
Weber relates not to brightness control corresponding to ambient lighting,
but rather relates to detecting display color and correcting for colors that are
not displayed properly. Reply Br. 6–7. Moreover, Weber does not teach or
suggest adjusting settings (in this case color) based on brightness settings of
a separate mobile device. Id. at 7.
Despite the above discussed shortcomings, the Examiner finds that
Ricci teaches controlling the brightness of a monitor based on brightness
settings of a separate external device, because Ricci teaches that the external
monitor can mirror the display of the mobile device. Ans. 13. The
Examiner finds that when the monitor is a mirror image of the mobile device
display, the brightness settings for the two displays are the same. Id. Even
if we accept that the brightness of each display is the same, this does not
satisfy the claim limitation at issue. The claims recite a lookup table whose
brightness values are based on brightness settings of the mobile device
display. The Examiner has not shown this feature is taught or suggested by
the combined references.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–20 under § 103.
Appeal 2020-004685
Application 14/290,361

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Ricci, Weber, Lee 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED