Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2015

12299772 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER R. ANDERSON, MARK B. GAGNER, and
LARRY J. PACEY
___________

Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1

Peter R. Anderson et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims
1–9 as unpatentable over Gauselmann (US 7,780,527 B2; iss. Aug. 24,
2010) and Nathan (US 7,868,857 B2; iss. Jan. 11, 2011); and (2) claims 24–
37 as unpatentable over Nathan and Gauselmann. Claims 10–23 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a gaming system having a
feature that extends the life of and/or reduces the effect of long-term static
imaging in variable displays.” Spec. para. 1; Fig. 2. Claims 1, 24, and 33
are independent.

1
The Examiner and Appellants agree that claims 1–9 and 24–37 are before
us for review. See Final Act. 2 (mailed November 15, 2011); Ans. 3 (mailed
May 10, 2012); Appeal Br. 8 (filed April 12, 2012); Reply Br. 2 (filed July
10, 2012). We note that claims 32–37 filed in the Response to Non-Final
Action (i.e., the claims referred to by the Examiner in the Final Action) are
different from those before us for review. See Response After Non-Final
Act. 6–7, Listing of Claims (filed October 10, 2011); see also Appeal Br.
21–22, Claims App. We further note that dependent claims 38–40 are
included in the Response After Final Action. See Response After Final Act.
7, Listing of Claims (filed January 17, 2012); see also id. at 8. The
Examiner indicates that the claims “will be entered” in the Advisory Action.
See Advisory Act. 1 (mailed January 27, 2012). However, neither the
Examiner nor Appellants address dependent claims 38–40 in the respective
Answer or Briefs. See Ans., generally; see also Appeal Br. and Reply Br.,
generally. Accordingly, claims 1–9 and 24–37, as submitted in the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 18–22), are before us for
review and are the only claims before us for review.
Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772

3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A user-input button operably connected to a
gaming device, the button comprising:
a movable member configured to activate a
function of the gaming device;
a variable display device including a plurality of
pixels displaying one or more images to a player by
emitting light through the movable member, the one or
more images associated with at least one of the function
of the user-input button and a state of the gaming device;
and
a controller coupled to the variable display device
and programmed to:
track accumulated display times of the
pixels of the plurality;
calculate optical output degradation of the
pixels due to the accumulated display times in
accordance with predetermined degradation data;
based on the calculated degradation,
compensate for the degradation by at least one of
(a) increasing optical output of at least some
of the pixels of the plurality that have high
calculated degradation, and
(b) decreasing optical output of at least some
of the pixels of the plurality that have low
calculated degradation.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Gauselmann and Nathan
Claims 1–9
Independent claim 1 calls for a user-input button including a variable
display device having a plurality of pixels and a controller coupled to the
variable display device and programmed to “track accumulated display times
of the pixels of the plurality” and “calculate optical output degradation of the
pixels due to the accumulated display times in accordance with
Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772

4
predetermined degradation data.” Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. The
Examiner finds that Gauselmann does not teach “a controller coupled to the
variable display device and programmed to: track accumulated display times
of the pixels of the plurality; [and] calculate optical output degradation of
the pixels due to the accumulated display times in accordance with
predetermined degradation data.” See Ans. 6. The Examiner turns to
Nathan for these limitations. See id. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Nathan discloses (1) “[a] compensation functions module 130” (citing
Nathan, col. 3, ll. 62–67); (2) “‘regular timing or a dynamically regulated
timing’ is kept track of for performing a measurement by the module 130,
during which the display of Nathan is active[”] (citing id. at col. 4, lines 25–
34); and (3) “an OLED [Organic Light-Emitting Diode] with a
compensation scheme that includes the ‘module 134 and the digital data
processor 106 which estimates the degradation of the entire pixel’ in
accordance with ‘degradation data 132’” (citing id. at col. 3, ll. 32–61; col.
4, ll. 37–39; Figs. 1, 3). See Ans. 6–7.
Appellants contend that “Nathan’s approach, as clearly described in
the Nathan disclosure, is to take ‘snapshots’ of various electrical
characteristics of the pixel circuit. . . . The measurements are explicitly NOT
accumulated times.” See Appeal Br. 11 (citing Nathan, Abstract); see also
id. at 13. According to Appellants, “[a] pixel (or associated TFT [Thin Film
Transistor]) may be observed to be severely degraded at a moment in time
and yet the cause of the degradation cannot be ascribed to accumulated
display time by Nathan’s process.” See id. at 13. Appellants further contend
that “Nathan teaches measuring the degradation at different times (e.g., a
measurement is taken at hour 1 and another measurement is taken at hour 2 .
Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772

5
. . at hour N)” and that “taking measurements periodically (at different
times) does not equate to measuring accumulated time itself.” See id. at 12.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Nathan discloses that
[t]he degradation data 132 may be measured at a regular
timing or a dynamically regulated timing. The calculated pixel
circuit degradation data 136 may be compensation data to
correct non-uniformities in the display. The calculated pixel
circuit degradation data 136 may include any parameters to
produce the compensation data. The compensation data may be
used at a regular timing (e. g.[,] each frame, regular interval,
etc[.]) or dynamically regulated timing[.] The measured data,
compensation data or a combination thereof may be stored in a
memory (e.g.[,] 142 of FIG. 8).

Nathan, col. 4, ll. 25–34. Nathan further discloses that “[t]he degradation
data 132 may be measured infrequently (for example, once every 20 hours,
or less). Using a dynamic time allocation for the degradation measurement
is another case, more frequent extraction at the beginning and less frequent
extraction after the aging gets saturated.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 15–20. In other
words, Nathan discusses that the degradation data 132 may be measured at
(1) a regular timing (e.g., at each frame or at a regular interval, such as once
every 20 hours); or (2) a dynamically regulated timing (i.e., more or less
frequently based upon pixel aging). In addition, Nathan discusses that the
measured data (i.e., the various measured pixel display times) may be stored
(accumulated) in a memory. See id. at col. 4, ll. 32–34; Fig. 8. However,
claim 1 calls for the controller to be programmed to “track accumulated
[pixel] display times.” See Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. The Examiner does
not direct us to any portion in Nathan that describes that the stored
(accumulated) measured data (i.e., the various measured pixel display times)
is tracked. Further, although we agree with the Examiner that “[Nathan’s]
Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772

6
timing function [i.e., regular timing] may be set to measure degradation of
pixels at 24 hours in which the pixels [have] been displayed during [that]
time period (see Ans. 20–21),” claim 1 calls for the controller to be
programmed to calculate pixel degradation “due to the accumulated [pixel]
display times.” See Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. (emphasis added). The
Examiner does not direct us to any portion of Nathan that describes that the
measured data (i.e., the various measured pixel display times) are
collectively used to calculate pixel degradation. We agree with Appellants
that “taking measurements periodically (at different times) does not equate
to measuring accumulated time itself.” See Appeal Br. 12. Based on the
foregoing, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that the
combined teachings of Gauselmann and Nathan disclose the apparatus called
for in independent claim 1.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–9 as
unpatentable over Gauselmann and Nathan.
Obviousness over Nathan and Gauselmann
Claims 24–37
Each of independent claims 24 and 33 calls for a method including the
steps of tracking accumulated pixel display times and calculating pixel
degradation due to accumulated display times. See Appeal Br. 19–21,
Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and
conclusions for claims 24–37 as discussed above in claim 1. See Ans. 12–
19. Thus, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to Nathan
and Gauselmann are deficient for claims 24–37 as well.

Appeal 2012-010760
Application 12/299,772

7
For the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1, we likewise do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24–37 as unpatentable over
Nathan and Gauselmann.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examine to reject claims 1–9 as
unpatentable over Gauselmann and Nathan.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 24–37 as
unpatentable over Nathan and Gauselmann.

REVERSED

llw