Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12208290 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/208,290 09/10/2008
73576 7590
APPLE INC - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
06/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cheng CHEN
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.
P6015US1 I APPL:0469 2315
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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 CHENG CHEN, WEI CHEN,
VICTOR HAO-EN YIN, and JOHN Z. ZHONG
Appeal2014-009682
Application 12/208,290
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and JOHN F. HORVATH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 19-33, and 35, the only claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 10, 2008 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Aug. 5, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Feb. 11, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer filed July 7, 2014
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 5, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-009682
Application 12/208,290
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to an angularly dependent display optimized
for multiple viewing angles. (Spec. Title, Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
selecting one of a plurality of orientation profiles for a
display device; and
generating a plurality of pixel driving voltages using the
display device directly from an electro-optical response curve
associated with the selected one of the plurality of orientation
profiles; and
driving a plurality of pixels of the display device using the
plurality of pixel driving voltages.
(App. Br. 14-Claims App'x.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 19, and 21-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Oh (US 2007/0070092 Al, Mar. 29, 2007). (Final Act.
2-7.)
Claims 4, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Oh and Andrade (US 6,954,193 Bl, Oct. 11, 2005). (Final Act. 7-8.)
Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Oh
and Feinstein (US 6,466,198 Bl, Oct. 15, 2002). (Final Act. 9-10.)
ANALYSIS
§ 102(b)
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
2
Appeal2014-009682
Application 12/208,290
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal?fornia, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, every element and
limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding that Oh discloses the
claimed "generating a plurality of pixel driving voltages using the display
device directly from an electro-optical response curve associated with the
selected one of the plurality of orientation profiles," as recited in claim 1 and
in similar language of claims 19 and 26. (App. Br. 6-9, Reply Br. 2-5.)
Appellants further argue Oh uses multiple format transformations to
generate driving voltages for display pixels, which results in reduced image
accuracy. (App. Br. 7-8, Reply Br. 2-5.) In contrast, Appellants argue, the
claimed invention uses only one transformation to generate the pixel driving
voltages. (Id.)
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive to show Examiner error.
Oh discloses detection of orientation angle, correction of input image
according to detected orientation angle, and display of the corrected image.
(Final Act. 2, citing Oh i-fi-154--56, Fig. 8.) Specifically, Oh states "the input
image IN is brightness-corrected using the gamma parameter and brightness
offset corresponding to the detected orientation, which are obtained from the
first look-up table in which angles, gamma parameters and brightness offset
values are previously mapped." (Oh i155.) Oh further states "[t]he
brightness-corrected image is displayed by the image display unit 320 to be
shown to a user in operation 820." (Id. i156.) Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the brightness-corrected pixel
3
Appeal2014-009682
Application 12/208,290
values from the first look-up table are provided directly to the image display
unit, identically to what is claimed.
As the Examiner noted, Appellants' argument that Oh uses multiple
transformations whereas the claimed invention uses only one transformation,
is likewise unpersuasive. (Ans. 13.) The argued claims do not recite that the
set of voltages to drive the display are determined with only one
transformation. In addition, the claims do not recite that these voltages are
based on an input image, let alone an untransformed input image. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion of anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
§ 103(a)
An obviousness rejection under§ 103(a) requires that "there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellants argue the obviousness rejections on the same grounds
previously discussed. (App. Br. 11-13, Reply Br. 5---6.) For the reasons set
forth above, we agree with the Examiner that the argued distinctions
between the claimed invention and cited combinations of references would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
conclude the Examiner provides the required reasoning and underpinning to
support the obviousness rejections, which we sustain.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 19-33, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and§ 103(a).
4
Appeal2014-009682
Application 12/208,290
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
5