Ex Parte Chu Ke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

12888435 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
12/888,435 09/23/2010 Hui Chu Ke 67507-055 4442
65358 7590
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
EXAMINER
XIE, KWIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI CHU KE and SHENG-WEN CHENG
Appeal 2014-009036
Application 12/888,435
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7—9, 14,
and 15, and obviousness rejections of claims 2—6, 10-13, and 16—21.
Exemplary Claims
The invention concerns a flat panel display (see independent claims 1
and 9) and an image display method for a flat panel display (see independent
claim 15), including controlling a four color image conversion according to
a backlight adjusting signal (Fig. 3; Spec. Tflf 1—5; Abs.). An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 9, and
15, which are reproduced below with emphases added to the disputed
portions of the claims:
Claim 1. A flat panel display comprising:
a four-color conversion unit comprising a preliminary
conversion lookup table, the four-color conversion unit being
utilized for providing a first set of four color image signals
corresponding to three color image input signals based on
the preliminary conversion lookup table and providing a
plurality of corresponding conversion scaling factors;
a dynamic backlight control unit, electrically connected
to the four-color conversion unit, for [generating]1 2a backlight
adjusting signal according to the conversion scaling factors, [A]
wherein the four-color conversion unit is further utilized
for converting the three color image input signals into a second
1 See Appellants’ Amendment to claims filed Sept. 23, 2010, p. 14.
Appellants inadvertently omitted the word “generating” in reprinting the
claims in the proceeding amendment filed March 11, 2013, p. 2.
2
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
set of four color image signals according to the backlight
adjusting signal;
a backlight module, electrically connected to the dynamic
backlight control unit, for providing a backlight output having
an intensity adjusted according to the backlight adjusting
signal;
a source driver, electrically connected to the four-color
conversion unit, for providing a plurality of data signals
according to the second set of four color image signals; and
a pixel array unit, electrically connected to the source
driver, for displaying an image according to the data signals and
the backlight output.
Claim 9. A flat panel display comprising:
a four-color conversion unit comprising a preliminary
conversion lookup table, four-color conversion unit being
utilized for providing a first set of four color image signals
corresponding to three color image input signals based on
the preliminary conversion lookup table and providing a
plurality of corresponding conversion scaling factors;
a dynamic backlight control unit, electrically connected
to the four-color conversion unit, for [generating]2 a backlight
adjusting signal according to the conversion scaling factors;
a compensation unit, electrically connected to the four-
color conversion unit and the dynamic backlight control unit,
[B [for compensating the first set offour color image signals to
become a second set of four color image signals according
to the backlight adjusting signal;
a backlight module, electrically connected to the dynamic
backlight control unit, for providing a backlight output having
an intensity adjusted according to the backlight adjusting
signal;
2 See Appellants’ Amendment to claims filed Sept. 23, 2010, p. 16.
Appellants inadvertently omitted the word “generating” in reprinting the
claims in the proceeding amendment filed March 11, 2013, p. 15.
3
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
a source driver, electrically connected to the
compensation unit, for providing a plurality of data signals
according to the second set of four color image signals; and
a pixel array unit, electrically connected to the source
driver, for displaying an image according to the data signals and
the backlight output.
Claim 15. An image display method for use in a flat
panel display, the image display method comprising:
receiving a set of three color image input signals;
providing a first set of four color image signals
corresponding to the set of three color image input signals
based on a preliminary conversion lookup table and providing a
plurality of corresponding conversion scaling factors;
providing a backlight adjusting signal according to the
conversion scaling factors,
adjusting an intensity of a backlight output according to
the backlight adjust signal;
[C] generating a second set of four color image signals
according to the backlight adjusting signal; and
displaying an image according to the second set of four
color image signals in coordination with the backlight output.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7—9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Furukawa (US 2009/0002298 Al;
published Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 6—12; Ans. 2—7.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furukawa and Hirose (US 8,144,141
B2; issued Mar. 27, 2012). Final Act. 13—19; Ans. 2.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furukawa and Muroi (US
2010/0321414 Al; issued Dec. 23, 2010). Final Act. 19—24; Ans. 2.
4
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furukawa and Shin (US 2008/0158454
Al; published July 3, 2008). Final Act. 24—33; Ans. 2.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Furukawa and Sakai (US 2007/0152949 Al;
published July 5, 2007). Final Act. 33—37; Ans. 2.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5—8)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—6),3 the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 7—9, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) because Furukawa fails to disclose the disputed limitations,
[A], [B], and [C] each directed to the generation of “a second set of four
color image signals according to the backlight adjusting signal” as recited in
each of independent claims 1, 9, and 15?
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5—8) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2—6) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15
with regard to Furukawa as applied by the Examiner (see App. Br. 6—8;
3 Appellants present arguments on the merits as to independent claims 1, 9,
and 15, and argue the patentability of claims 2—8, 10—14, and 16—21 based
on the arguments presented for claims 1, 9, and 15 from which they
respectively depend (see App. Br. 8).
5
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
Reply Br. 4—5).
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 7—9, 14, and 15
Claims 1, 9, and 15 define a flat panel display and associated image
display method for generating a second set of four color image signals
“according to the backlight adjusting signal,” where the backlight adjusting
signal is provided according to conversion scaling factors provided by a
four-color conversion unit (see claims 1, 9, and 15). The Examiner relies
upon Furukawa’s Figures 1 and 2 and paragraphs 29, 45, and 72 as
disclosing the conversion of four color image signals according to a
backlight adjusting signal (see Final Act. 6—13; Ans. 2—9). Although
Furukawa discloses a backlight for a liquid crystal display panel (Fig. 2; |
29), Furukawa does not show a backlight, backlight module, or a backlight
adjusting signal in the drawings (see Figs. 1 and 2; 129, first sentence). In
addition, Furukawa is silent as to if or how the backlight relates to the
conversion process occurring in the circuitry shown in Figure 2 which
performs four color conversions (e.g., inverse gamma conversion) as
described in paragraphs 45 and 72. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 4—
5) that it is not inherent in the inverse gamma correction disclosed in
Furukawa that a backlight adjusting signal either exists or is the basis for
generating a second set of four color image signals as claimed. In fact, there
is no connection, relation, or reliance upon a backlight adjusting signal (even
if one were to be shown to be present) in the four color conversion process
of Furukawa. In this light, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br.
4—5) that Furukawa does not generate a second set of four color image
signals according to a backlight adjusting signal as recited in claims 1, 9, and
15 are persuasive. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
6
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, as well as claims 7,
8, and 14 depending respectively therefrom.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2—6, 10—13, and 16—21
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2—8, 10—14, and 16—
21 are based on the same erroneous findings regarding Furukawa (as
disclosing limitations [A], [B], and [C] found in claims 1, 9, and 15,
respectively) as discussed above regarding the anticipation rejection. For
these same reasons, and because claims 2—6, 10—13, and 16—21 each
ultimately depend from respective ones of claims 1, 9, and 15, we agree with
Appellants (see App. Br. 8) that the obviousness rejections are in error for
similar reasons. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 2—6, 10—13, and 16—21.4
CONCEUSION
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting (i)
claims 1, 7—9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Furukawa; and (ii) claims 2—6, 10-13, and 16—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Furukawa taken with various other secondary
references.
4 Our finding is directed to a determination of whether or not Furukawa
discloses limitations [A], [B], and [C] as set forth in claims 1, 9, and 15,
respectively. We make no finding regarding whether or not it would have
been obvious to modify Furukawa, and we leave the Examiner to consider
the appropriateness of further rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
cited references applied differently or in combination with additional
references.
7
Appeal 2010-003268009036
Application 12/888,435
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7—9, 14,
and 15, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2—6, 10-13, and 16—21.
REVERSED
8