Ex Parte CHOU et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2016

12128383 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/128,383 05/28/2008
109673 7590 04/01/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu-Pin CHOU
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.
251812-3710 1193
EXAMINER
BOGALE, AMEN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-PIN CHOU and SZU-PING CHEN
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 4--19, all of the claims pending in the
Application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 3
1 Appellants identify Realtek Semiconductor Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 2 and 3 were canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (filed May 28, 2008) ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 14, 2013) ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
(filed Oct. 1, 2013) ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 30,
2014) ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 9, 2014) ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to detecting the resolution of an image signal
for a display device. Spec. i-f 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for mode detection for a display device,
compnsmg:
a front-end circuit, for fetching an image signal according
to a determined mode to generate a fetched image signal, and
adjusting the determined mode according to a control signal;
a back-end circuit, coupled to the front-end circuit, for
processing the fetched image signal according to the determined
mode, and for generating an indication signal when the back-end
circuit occurs an abnormal status; and
a determining unit, coupled to the front-end circuit and the
back-end circuit, for generating the control signal according to
the indication signal indicating the determined mode needs
adjustment.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Wu (US 6,392,642 Bl; iss. May 21, 2002).
Ans. 2-15.
R2. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Wu and Fukuda (US 6,577,322 Bl; iss. June 10, 2003). Ans. 15-16.
R3. Claims 9, 11, 14, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Wu and Gong (US 2006/0262809 Al; publ. Nov. 23,
2006). Ans. 16-25.
2
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding Wu discloses a front-end
circuit, a back-end circuit, and a determining unit, as recited in independent
claim 1?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred by equating the displaying
circuit of Wu to all three claimed components-the front-end circuit, the
back-end circuit, and the determining unit-although one of ordinary skill in
the art \x1ould not reasonably constr11e a front-end circuit and back-circuit as
sharing a common component. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2--4. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' contention, because nothing in the claims or
Appellants' Specification precludes the claimed circuits from sharing
components. Further, in light of the portions of Wu cited by the Examiner in
the rejection, we understand Wu to disclose each of the separate circuit
elements, which operate together as claimed. Specifically, the first and
second counters of Wu disclose a front-end circuit for fetching an image
signal (Ans. 2-3); the displaying circuit discloses a back-end circuit that
processes the image signal (Ans. 4--5); and the control circuit discloses a
determining unit coupled to the front-end circuit and the back-end circuit.
3
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wu discloses
each separate circuit element as claimed, and we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding Wu discloses "adjusting the
determined mode," as recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 17?
Appellants contend Wu does not disclose adjusting the determined
mode according to a control signal or indication signal, because Wu adjusts
the pixel clock frequency and not the determined resolution of the image
signal. App. Br. 9-11, 13-14, and 20. Appellants further argue there is no
teaching of a control signal or indication signal in Wu. Reply Br. 4--6.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. The
Examiner finds Wu's pixel clock frequency corresponds to the determined
pixel resolution mode. Ans. 26. The Examiner further finds Wu's control
circuit generates a target pixel sampling number (i.e., a control signal) that is
used to adjust the pixel clock counter, which is part of the front-end circuit
as discussed in Issue 1 supra. Ans. 26 (citing Wu, col. 4, 11. 1-21 ).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wu discloses
adjusting the determined mode (i.e., pixel clock frequency/pixel resolution)
according to a target control signal or indication signal, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 12, and 17.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by finding Wu discloses "a measuring
unit compares pixel values of the image signal with a predetermined value, "
as recited in claim 5?
Appellants contend Wu's disclosure of the quantity of scanning lines
is not the same as pixel values, because Appellants' Specification
distinguishes synch signals from pixel values. App. Br. 11-12. The
4
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Wu discloses counting horizontal
synchronization signals, which is equal to the horizontal pixel resolution,
and comparing that value with a predetermined value in the target resolution
table. Ans. 8 (citing Wu, col. 4, 11. 1-21 ). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by finding Wu discloses "scaling the
fetched image signal, " as recited in claims 10 and 13?
Appellants contend Wu discloses sampling an incoming video signal
according to the determined resolution, but the reference does not disclose
sampling the image signal, which requires a process of resizing the digital
image. App. Br. 12-13; 15-16. The Examiner finds the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "scaling" includes sampling the image according to the
determined mode of the pixel clock. Ans. 9, 30. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error, because a skilled artisan would recognize the rate at which
the incoming signal is sampled affects the resolution of the image (e.g.,
sampling at 640x350 or 640x400; see Wu, col. 4, 11. 23-26), and thus affects
the scaling of the image. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 10 and
13.
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err by combining Wu and Fukuda to reject
claims 6 and 7 because Fukuda would change the intent and manner of
operation of Wu?
The Examiner finds Fukuda teaches determining the start point of an
image according to a data enable signal. Ans. 15-16. Appellants contend
the combination of Wu and Fukuda is improper, because the intent and
operation of Wu is to not to adjust an incoming video signal, but to
determine how to sample the incoming signal properly to display it
5
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
according to its resolution. App Br. 17. Appellants argue the combination
of Wu and Fukuda would result in adjusting the resolution of the incoming
signal, which would fundamentally alter the intent and operation of Wu. Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because the "test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 ). Here, the Examiner relied upon Fukuda to teach a data
enable signal that indicates the starting point to display the incoming image,
not Fukuda' s teaching of adjusting the resolution of the image. Ans. 15-16
and 35. A skilled artisan would recognize Wu's display is capable of
incorporating a data enable signal to indicate a starting point, and therefore
we do not agree that Fukuda would change the intent and manner of
operation of Wu. Thus, we sustain the Examiner;s rejection of claims 6 and
7.
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err by combining Wu and Gong to reject
claims 9, 11, 14, and 17-19 because Gong would change the intent and
manner of operation of Wu?
The Examiner finds Gong teaches an abnormal status of a buffer that
comprises an underflow or overflow state of the buffer. Ans. 16-1 7.
Appellants contend the combination of Wu and Gong is improper, for
similar reasons as those discussed with respect to Issue 5 supra: the
combination of Wu and Gong would result in adjusting the resolution of the
incoming signal, which would fundamentally alter the intent and operation
of Wu. App. Br. 21-22.
6
Appeal2014-004851
Application 12/128,383
We are not persuaded of Examiner error, again because the test for
obviousness is not bodily incorporation, but what the teachings suggest to
one of ordinary skill. See Keller, supra. The Examiner relied upon Gong to
teach an overflow or underflow status of the image data buffer, and a skilled
artisan would recognize Wu's buffer is capable of including the indication of
such a status. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 11, 14,
and 17-19.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 4, 8, 15,
and 16, therefore we sustain their rejections for the reasons stated with
respect to independent claims 1 and 12.
DECISION
The Examiner;s rejections of claims 1 and 4--19 are affirmed.
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
7