Ex Parte Hunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

11570080 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

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.
11/570,080 10/31/2007 Alexander Hunt SEDE PS04 0121US1 7279
58342 7590 07/30/2014
WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
CASCHERA, ANTONIO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2014 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 ALEXANDER HUNT and MARTIN EK
____________________

Appeal 2012-000299
Application 11/570,080
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000299
Application 11/570,080

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–11, and 13–17. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a display for a
mobile terminal for wireless communication, and specifically to displaying
an image on source restricted devices like mobile terminals (Spec. 1, ll. 13–
17).

B. CLAIM
Claim 1:
1. A display for a mobile terminal for wireless communication,
comprising:
a first display area,
a second display area, wherein the first display area has a first
colour depth and the second display area has a second colour depth,
wherein the first colour depth is higher than the second colour depth,
and
control means for controlling the displaying of a picture in the
first display area, wherein
the control means adapts the picture by altering the colour depth
of the picture in order to display it in the first display area and changes
the size of the first display area, whereby the alteration of the colour
depth of the picture and the change of size of the first display area
depend on a size of a used random access memory RAM.

Appeal 2012-000299
Application 11/570,080

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Yamaashi US 5,880,728 Mar. 9, 1999
McKay US 6,313,822 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Kimura US 2003/0160748 A1 Aug. 28, 2003
Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kimura, McKay and Yamaashi.

II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Kimura, McKay and Yamaashi teaches or
would have suggested a control means that “adapts the picture by altering
the colour depth . . . and changes the size of the first display area” as recited
in claim 1 (emphases added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Yamaashi
Yamaashi discloses a video data display control unit 205 that controls
a display driver unit 204 in accordance with information of display images
designated by an operator display instruction and information of a command
representing a display state, wherein a display state management table 206
stores display state data and preset image area importance factors of image
areas displayed on a display 203, the display state data including the size of
Appeal 2012-000299
Application 11/570,080

4
each image area, and an interest degree determining unit 207 determines a
user interest degree of each image area in accordance with the display state
data and preset image area superiority rank data (col. 4, ll. 53–66; Fig. 1).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “Yamaashi does not disclose or suggest changing
the size of a display area as claimed . . .” but rather “Yamaashi discloses
changing other parameters, such as the number of pixels defining a
resolution . . .” (App. Br. 6, emphasis omitted). Although Appellants
concede Yamaashi discloses program applications that “may generate
windows that can be set to different sized areas,” Appellants contend “there
is no disclosure or suggestion that the display area size actually changes as
part of the picture adaptation” (App. Br. 7). That is, although Appellants
concede that “Yamaashi teaches a user manually may set display parameters,
including setting a size of a display area . . .” Appellants contend
“Yamaashi, however, does not teach any change of a display area size as
part of a picture adaptation to enhance display performance” (Reply Br. 2).
However, the Examiner points out Yamaashi “explicitly discloses
changing the image attributes, including colour depth and image area size”
and “setting a parameter ‘setArea’ which is defined as ‘setting an image area
size of the input video data to be transmitted and displayed at the video data
display unit’” (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that “this parameter in
Yamaashi et al. would easily equate to such ‘changing the size of a display
area’ element of the claims” (id.). The Examiner then finds an artisan would
have been motivated to combine McKay’s “computations” involving
“memory usage with colour depth and horizontal and vertical resolution and
Appeal 2012-000299
Application 11/570,080

5
adapting the image according to such computation” with Yamaashi’s
“customizability of setting different display area sizes in displaying image
data” to “teach the limitation in question” (Ans. 11). In particular, the
Examiner finds an artisan would have been motivated:
to implement the colour bit depth image area adjustment
techniques of Yamaashi et al. with the display resolution
alteration techniques of McKay et al. and display control
techniques of Kimura in order to reduce the amount of
transferred data and amount of data to be processed . . .
conserving on power, bandwidth and processing cycles in a
computer system

(Ans. 11–12).
We find no error with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over
Kimura, McKay and Yamaashi.
At the outset, we note that although Appellants contend “Yamaashi
teaches a user manually may set display parameters, including setting a size
of a display area,” and “Yamaashi, however, does not teach any change of a
display area size as part of a picture adaptation to enhance display
performance” (Reply Br. 2), such contentions not commensurate in scope
with the broader language of claim 1. In particular, claim 1 does not recite
“to enhance display performance” and does not preclude any manual change
of the display area size. Rather claim 1 merely requires adapting a picture
by changing the size of the display area.
Yamaashi discloses controlling the display driver unit in accordance
with the display state including the size of the image area (FF). That is, we
find Yamaashi at least suggests controlling the displayed image/picture by
changing the size of the image area (id.). Thus, we find no error with the
Appeal 2012-000299
Application 11/570,080

6
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Kimura, McKay and Yamaashi
would at least have suggested a control means that “adapts the picture” and
thus “changes the size” of a “display area” as recited in claim 1. Since the
Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combined teachings, the test
for obviousness is not what the references show individually but what the
combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 over Kimura, McKay and Yamaashi. Appellants do not provide
arguments for claims 3–11 and 13–17 separate from those of claim 1 (App.
Br. 8). Thus, claims 3–11 and 13–17 fall with claim 1 over Kimura, McKay
and Yamaashi.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj