Ex Parte Jayaramaiah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2018

14487392 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

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.
14/487,392 09/16/2014 Shilpa Jayaramaiah 5029-1285\353381 4806
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
TSWEI, YU-JANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2018 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):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHILPA JAYARAMAIAH
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,3921
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN A. EVANS, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6 and 8-10, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claims 7 and 11-14 are cancelled. Adv. Act. 1; App. Br. 13,
14 (Claims App.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Siemens AG and Siemens Technology and Services
Pvt, Ltd. as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,392
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “display devices and
more particularly to a display device adapted for energy conservation.”
Spec. ^ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A display device comprising:
a display unit comprising a matrix of light-emitting
elements, each light-emitting element of the matrix of light-
emitting elements illuminating at least one display pixel on said
display unit; and
a processing unit configured to execute a runtime
application, said runtime application comprising at least one
graphical user interface, and said at least one graphical user
interface comprising a plurality of graphical objects;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to
individually assign a rendering mode to at least one of said
plurality of graphical objects, said rendering mode comprising
one of a normal rendering mode and a power-saving rendering
mode;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to
regulating an illumination intensity of at least one light-emitting
element corresponding to said graphical object based on active
rendering mode thereof;
wherein each graphical object is assigned a grid layout
property, said grid layout property being assigned a parameter
value, and said parameter value assigned to said grid layout
property being set to indicate coordinates of a minimum
bounding rectangle enclosing said graphical object; and
wherein said processing unit is further configured to
determine a set of light-emitting elements corresponding to said
graphical object based on the grid layout property assigned to
said graphical object and to regulate the illumination intensity
of the set of light emitting elements corresponding to said
graphical object.
2
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,392
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
claims on appeal is:
Plut
Forstall
Betts-LaCroix
Chaji
US 2007/0002035 A1
US 2008/0218535 A1
US 2010/0149223 A1
US 2012/0293481 A1
evidence in rejecting the
Jan. 4, 2007
Sept. 11,2008
June 17,2010
Nov. 22, 2012
Chulwoo Lee et al., “Power-Constrained Contrast Enhancement for OLED
Displays Based on Histogram Equilization,” Proceedings of 2010 IEEE 17th
International Conference on Image Processing, 1689-92 (2010) (hereinafter
“Lee”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Betts-LaCroix in view of Plut, Forstall, and Chaji. Final
Act. 2-11; Adv. Act. 2.
Claims 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Betts-LaCroix in view of Plut,2 Forstall, Chaji, and Lee.
Final Act. 12-18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.3
2 Although the heading omits Plut, the rejections rely on Plut in combination
with the other references. See, e.g., Final Act. 12.
3 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellant and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 23,
2017); the Reply Brief (filed June 21, 2017); the Final Office Action (mailed
3
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,392
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1-10, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-11; Adv. Act. 2-3), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 4-8). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
The majority of Appellant’s arguments are directed to the references
individually, focusing on limitations that the Examiner explicitly found were
taught by other references. As an example, Appellant argues “Betts-LaCroix
fails to teach or suggest that each graphical object has a grid layout property
that is assigned a parameter value, where the parameter value assigned to the
grid layout property is set to indicate coordinates of a minimum bounding
rectangle enclosing the graphical object.” App. Br. 5. However, the
Examiner explicitly finds Betts-LaCroix does not teach that limitation (Final
August 24, 2016); the Advisory Action (mailed November 3, 2016); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed April 21, 2017) for the respective details.
4
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,392
Act. 4; Ans. 4-5) and, instead, the Examiner finds Chaji teaches that
limitation (Final Act. 6-7; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 4-5, 7). Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
For one reference, Appellant’s arguments are not directed to the
references individually. Specifically, Appellant’s argue that the Examiner
erred in finding Chaji teaches or suggests “that an iconographic symbol is
assigned a parameter value that is set to indicate coordinates of a minimum
bounding rectangle enclosing the iconographic symbol, based on which the
light emitting elements corresponding to the iconographic symbols are
illuminated.” App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant discusses in detail some of
the paragraphs in Chaji cited by the Examiner in the Final Action and
explain why Appellant believes they do not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. See id. at 7-8. With regard to the sections and figures relied on
by the Examiner in the Advisory Action, Appellant merely contends “this
position is not well taken” without providing any meaningful explanation.
Id. at 8; see also Reply Br. 3-5 (discussing paragraphs cited in Final Action,
but not those from the Advisory Action).
In the Advisory Action, the Examiner finds that Chaji teaches the
disputed limitation:
Chaji teaches the display of device is subsection into multiple
separated rectangle area in Fig. 5. Chaji further teaches each
subsection are separately controlled by the supply lines in Fig.
7. Chaji further teaches in Paragraph [0025], [0022] and [0038]
that the emit light for the data line on the device can be
programmed based on the desired amount of luminance.
Adv. Act. 2; see also Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds “Chaji teaches the
emit light (sic) for each data line in the display device can be individually
5
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,392
controlled based on the desired amount in Paragraph [0025], [0022], and
[0038].” Adv. Act. 2.
“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue—or,
more broadly, on a particular rejection—the Board will not, as a general
matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Although
the Examiner makes findings regarding Chaji figures 5 and 7 and paragraphs
22, 25, and 38, Appellant does not specifically address those findings with
argument. Instead, Appellant merely states: “Respectfully, this position is
not well taken. Chaji merely teaches a mechanism for regulating luminance
emitted from preset subsections of a display instead of illuminating the set of
light emitting elements corresponding to the graphical object that is assigned
a grid layout property.” App. Br. 8. Merely summarizing the claim
language and making a naked assertion that the prior art does not teach the
limitation, such as Appellant did in the Appeal Brief, is insufficient to raise
an argument that the Examiner erred. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires “more substantive arguments in an
appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”);
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded the
6
Appeal 2017-009315
Application 14/487,392
Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding as
our own.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with claims 2 and 8-10, which are not argued separately.
With respect to dependent claims 3-6, Appellant merely contends that
because Lee does not cure the shortcomings of the other references applied
against claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of
obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 8-9. Because we determine that the
rejection of claim 1 is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we
sustain the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1-6 and 8-10.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7