Ex Parte Jeong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

10910362 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAE-SEOK JEONG
____________

Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THOMAS S. HAHN, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention represents gray scales on a plasma display panel
by generating subfields such that a weight of a least significant bit (LSB)
subfield for a low load ratio is less than a weight for a LSB subfield for a
high load ratio. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0018-23. Claim 1 is illustrative with
key disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362

2
1. A method for representing gray scales on a plasma display panel
(PDP), comprising:

generating a load ratio of video data; and

generating subfields so that a weight of a least significant bit (LSB)
subfield for a low load ratio is less than a weight of a LSB subfield for a
high load ratio.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claim 181 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as reciting a single means claim. Ans. 3-4.2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagakubo (US 5,757,343; May 26, 1998). Ans. 4-5.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagakubo and Noecker (US 6,396,508 B1; May 28,
2002). Ans. 6-8.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagakubo, Noecker, and Kim (US 2004/0075625 A1;
Apr. 22, 2004). Ans. 8-11.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Noecker. Ans. 11-12.

1 Although the Examiner does not expressly state that claim 18 is rejected
under § 112, the Examiner nonetheless indicates that claim 18 recites a
single means claim in the section entitled “Claim Rejections – 35 USC §
112.” Ans. 3. We therefore presume that claim 18 is so rejected.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed July 14,
2008 (supplemented August 19, 2008 and April 30, 2009); (2) the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 22, 2008; and (3) the Reply Brief
filed November 21, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362

3
THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 18-20
Since Appellant presents no arguments regarding the Examiner’s
rejections of (1) claim 18 under § 112 (Ans. 3-4), and (2) claims 18-20 under
§ 103 (Ans. 11-12),3 we summarily sustain these rejections. See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010
(“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the
Board.”).

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NAGAKUBO
The Examiner finds that Nagakubo discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 except for generating a load ratio of video data, but
nonetheless concludes that this feature would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5,
13. According to the Examiner, Nagakubo generates subfields such that a
weight of a LSB subfield for a low load ratio (subfield SF1 in luminance
mode 4) is less than a weight for a LSB subfield for a high load ratio
(subfield SF1 in luminance mode 1). Id.
Appellant argues that since Nagakubo’s subfields are equally
weighted for their respective luminance modes, Nagakubo does not teach or
suggest different LSB subfield weights for low and high load ratios as
claimed. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4-5.

3 Accord App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2 (noting that claims 1-20 were rejected, but
claims 1-17 are appealed).
Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362

4
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Nagakubo would have taught or suggested generating subfields so that a
weight of a LSB subfield for a low load ratio is less than a weight for a LSB
subfield for a high load ratio?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting, as does Appellant (App. Br. 8), that Nagakubo’s
subfields have the same set of weighting coefficients in each of their
respective luminance modes. See Nagakubo, col. 1, ll. 30-34 (noting
“weighting coefficients 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, and 1” for the eight
luminance components). And we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 8) that
these weighting coefficients are maintained despite varying the number of
times that light emission operations are performed as shown in the respective
luminance modes. See Nagakubo, col. 2, ll. 8-56; Figs. 2-3D.
The Examiner, however, relies on the differences between subfield
SF1 in Nagakubo’s luminance modes 1 and 4 for teaching different subfield
weights as claimed. Ans. 13. Nagakubo’s luminance modes 1 and 4 in
Figures 3A and 3D are reproduced below:

Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362

5

Nagakubo’s luminance modes 1 and 4 in Figures 3A and 3D

As shown above, the SF1 subfield in modes 1 and 4 differs only with
respect to the amount of discharge light emission. It is this difference,
however, that the Examiner interprets as different relative weighting
between these subfields. See Ans. 13.
We see no error in this finding, for nothing in the claim precludes the
SF1 subfields’ relative weights with respect to each other in terms of their
relative light emission. That is, subfield SF1 for luminance mode 1 has a
higher light emission than its counterpart subfield in mode 4, and in this
sense, would be weighted higher, at least with respect to relative light
emission. See Nagakubo, col. 2, ll. 28-44. Notably, these relative “weights”
reasonably comport with the plain meaning of the term which is defined, in
pertinent part, as “the relative importance or authority accorded something.”4

4 MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1340 (10th ed. 2004).
Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362

6
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 and claims 2-4 not separately argued with
particularity.5

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 5-17
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 5-17
(Ans. 6-11) since Appellant does not particularly identify errors in the
Examiner’s reasoning to overcome the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion
for these claims apart from previously-made arguments. See App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 4-5. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the
reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claim 18 under § 112, and
(2) claims 1-20 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.

5 Although Appellant nominally argues claims 3 and 4 separately (App. Br.
9), Appellant relies on arguments similar to those for claim 1 which we find
unpersuasive for the reasons indicated previously.
Appeal 2009-011804
Application 10/910,362

7
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

rwk