Ex Parte Daly

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

10973157 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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.
10/973,157 10/25/2004 Scott J. Daly SLA1049.1 (7146.0273) 1499
55648 7590 07/31/2012
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
SHERMAN, STEPHEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT J. DALY
____________

Appeal 2010-000736
Application 10/973,157
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000736
Application 10/973,157

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 23-97, 101, 103, and 107-109, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Representative Claim
101. A display apparatus comprising:

(a) a display having a plurality of pixels;

(b) a light source element;

(c) a controller to modulate, without manually
inputted data, a luminance output of said light source between a
plurality of non-zero values based on the spatial variance of
frame data of an input image; and

(d) said controller adjusts said luminance output
according to a data which is produced based on a luminance
data of said pixels being compared to a threshold.

Prior Art
Dattilo US 5,293,258 Mar. 8, 1994
Stewart US 5,337,068 Aug. 9, 1994
Johnson US 6,608,614 B1 Aug. 19, 2003
Dresevic US 6,624,828 B1 Sep. 23, 2003
Jaspers US 6,697,110 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
T. Funamoto et al., High-Picture-Quality Technique for LCD
Televisions: LCD-AI, PROC. 7TH INT’L DISPLAY WORKSHOPS 1157 (Nov.
2000).

Appeal 2010-000736
Application 10/973,157

3
Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 97, 101, 103, and 107-109 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Funamoto.
(2) Claims 23-25, 27, 31, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, and Jaspers.
(3) Claims 32-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Jaspers, and Dattilo.
(4) Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Jaspers, and Dresevic.
(5) Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Jaspers, Dresevic, and Stewart.
(6) Claims 38-41, 47, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, and Stewart.
(7) Claims 48-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Stewart, and Dattilo.
(8) Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Stewart, and Dresevic.
(9) Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Stewart, and Jaspers.
(10) Claims 44-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Stewart, Jaspers, and Dresevic.
(11) Claims 54-58, 63, 68-75, 80, 85-88, 92, 95, and 96 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson,
Funamoto, and Dresevic.
Appeal 2010-000736
Application 10/973,157

4
(12) Claims 64-67, 81-84, and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Dresevic, and
Dattilo.
(13) Claims 59-62, 76-79, 89-91, and 94 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Funamoto, Dresevic,
and Jaspers.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claim 97
Appellant concedes that claim 97 is unpatentable. Reply Br. 4-5. We
therefore, summarily sustain the rejection of claim 97 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejections of claims 23-96, 101, 103, and 107-109
In the rejection of claim 97, the Examiner finds that Johnson teaches a
user providing a value, and circuitry that performs spatial varying using the
input value. The Examiner concludes that spatial varying of the light source
is done without manual input. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner then applies this
rationale to the rejection of claim 101. Ans. 7. Appellant contends that a
user setting a target value as described by Johnson does not teach spatial
varying without manual input. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6-7.
We disagree with the Examiner. We find that a user inputting a
desired or a target chromaticity into an input device as taught by Johnson
(col. 3, ll. 61-66) does not teach “a controller to modulate, without manually
inputted data,” as recited in claim 101. Further, the Examiner has not
provided persuasive evidence or explanation to establish that automating the
Appeal 2010-000736
Application 10/973,157

5
manual function of inputting a desired or a target chromaticity into a
controller was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention. Given that the Examiner has not performed this necessary fact
finding and analysis, we decline to do so here, because doing so would
deprive Appellant of adequate notice and opportunity to respond.
The Examiner further finds that Appellant’s Specification does not
provide adequate support for “without manually inputted data” as recited in
claim 101, and that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
proper. See Ans. 43. Appellant contends that Appellant’s Specification
provides adequate support for “without manually inputted data.” App.
Br. 11. Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been persuasively rebutted by Appellant
and withdrawn by the Examiner. Reply Br. 7.
Given that the Examiner’s Answer does not include a rejection under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, we find that this issue is not ripe for appeal
and therefore decline to address this issue.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 101 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 23, 38, 54, 70, 87, and 107-109 each contain a limitation
similar to that of claim 101 for which the rejection fails.

DECISION
The rejection of claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The rejections of claims 23-96, 101, 103, and 107-109 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
Appeal 2010-000736
Application 10/973,157

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc