Ex Parte Hymel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2017

12878801 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
12/878,801 09/09/2010 James Allen HYMEL 35628-US-PAT 5661
95866 7590 03/07/2017
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L.
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, EL 33487
EXAMINER
AU, SCOTT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2017 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):
ptoboc a @ fggbb .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES ALLEN HYMEL
Appeal 2016-003940
Application 12/878,801
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims
1—26, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION.
Appeal 2016-003940
Application 12/878,801
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, the disclosed invention relates to a system
and method for controlling a display according to display characteristics.
Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving content for generation on an active matrix
organic light emitting diode display in a handheld mobile device;
determining a portion of the received content having a first
power drain characteristic;
generating modified content by modifying the portion of
the received content into a format that has a second positive
power drain characteristic lower than the first power drain
characteristic, the second positive power drain characteristic
causing less drain on a power supply than the first power drain
characteristic, while leaving other portions of the received
content unmodified; and
controlling the display to generate the modified content.
REFERENCES
Funston US 2003/0222866 A1 Dec. 4, 2003
Plut US 2010/0026736 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Milch EP 1 308 921 A2 Oct. 21, 2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Funston. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Funston and Plut. Final Act. 5.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Funston and
Milch. Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2016-003940
Application 12/878,801
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Funston. Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Funston does not disclose the following
limitations of claim 1: “determining a portion of the received content having
a first power drain characteristic,” “modifying the portion of the received
content into a format that has a second positive power drain characteristic,”
and “while leaving other portions of the received content unmodified.” App.
Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds the description of steps 42, 44, 46,
48, 50, and 52 of Funston Figure 2 discloses determining a portion of
received content having a first drain characteristic and modifying that
portion into a format that has a positive power drain characteristic. Ans. 8.
The Examiner finds the description of Funston Figure 5B of Funston
discloses leaving other portions of the received content unmodified. Id.
Appellant argues, however, that the cited disclosures in Funston
merely teach shutting off certain light emitting elements (giving them a zero
power drain characteristic), rather than modifying a portion of the received
content into a format that has a second positive power drain characteristic.
App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 3^4. We agree with Appellant. Regarding Figure
2, in the cited paragraphs, Funston discloses reducing the number of light
emitting elements used to present the image. Funston || 39-42. As
Appellant argues, however, the unused light elements could have zero power
drain characteristic, an argument the Examiner does not rebut. App. Br. 7—
8; Reply Br. 3^4. Similarly, with respect to Figure 5B, Funston describes
leaving a portion of the image unmodified, but then shutting off the light
emitting elements for the remaining portions of the image, which would also
3
Appeal 2016-003940
Application 12/878,801
appear to give such elements a zero power drain characteristic. App. Br. 6,
citing Funston 141; Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or
independent claim 14, which recites corresponding limitations, or of
dependent claims 2—13 and 15—26, which ultimately depend on claim 1 and
claim 14, respectively.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we issue new
grounds of rejection, rejecting claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Funston and reissuing the
standing obviousness rejections. We do the latter to give Appellant a full
opportunity to respond to our new analysis regarding the disputed limitations
of claim 1 and the corresponding limitations in claim 14, which are
incorporated by dependency into all of the dependent claims.
As discussed above, we do not find that the cited teachings in Funston
disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1 or the corresponding limitations
in claim 14. We find, however, that Funston at least suggests those
limitations. In particular, Funston describes an alternative embodiment that
reduces the luminous output of light emitting elements 18 of its emissive
light display, rather that disusing the light emitting elements altogether.
Funston 143. Funston provides an example of this embodiment where the
upper limit of the range of illumination intensities used in presenting an
image can be reduced to an arbitrary level so that none of light emitting
elements 18 will radiate light above that level. Id. These disclosures would
thus suggest determining a brighter portion of the content (that which would
exceed the threshold for the light emitting elements), reducing the luminous
4
Appeal 2016-003940
Application 12/878,801
intensity of the light emitting elements in that portion, and leaving the
intensities of the light emitting elements in darker portions unaffected. Id.
As Funston teaches, reducing the luminescence intensity of light
emitting elements reduces the power required to present an image or portion
of an image. Funston 139. Therefore, Funston teaches or suggests
“determining a portion of the received content having a first power drain
characteristic,” “modifying the portion of the received content into a format
that has a second positive power drain characteristic,” “while leaving other
portions of the received content unmodified.”
For the remaining limitations in the pending claims, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and rationales in the Answer and the Action from which
this Appeal was taken.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—26.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), as new grounds
of rejection, we reject:
(i) claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Funston;
(ii) claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Funston and Plut;
and
(iii) claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination
of Funston and Milch.
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides:
5
Appeal 2016-003940
Application 12/878,801
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the
appellant, within two months from the date of the decision,
must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal
as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of
rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject
the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant
to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
The request for rehearing must address any new ground of
rejection and state with particularity the points believed to
have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new
ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which
rehearing is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
6