Ex Parte Kearney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13457599 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
13/457,599 04/27/2012 Sean Philip Kearney H0031070 7655
108134 7590 03/29/2017
HONFYWFT T /ADHTTON
EXAMINER
115 Tabor Road COHEN, YARON
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docket @ ahpapatent. com
Katharine.Lawther@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN PHILIP KEARNEY, THOMAS AMUNDSEN,
BEJAMIN HEJL, MARK SCHMIDT, TAYLOR SMITH,
and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Appeal 2017-000749
Application 13/457,5991
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “mobile communication
terminals, and in particular to mobile communication terminals equipped
with a backlit display.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000749
Application 13/457,599
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A mobile communication terminal comprising:
a hand-held housing;
a microprocessor disposed within said housing;
a display equipped with a backlight, said display
incorporated into said housing;
a display adapter communicatively coupled to said
microprocessor, said display adapter configured to control said
display;
a video memory communicatively coupled to said display
adapter, said video memory configured to store data
representing images displayed by said display; and
a wireless communication interface communicatively
coupled to said microprocessor, said wireless communication
interface at least partially disposed within said housing;
wherein said mobile communication terminal is
configured, responsive to detecting a byte sequence
representing an image of decodable indicia being transferred to
said video memory, to increase an intensity of said backlight to
a pre-defmed level.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—18, and 20-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
White et al. (US 8,065,443 Bl; issued Nov. 22, 2011) (hereinafter “White”)
and Bergfors et al. (US 2008/0278099 Al; published Nov. 13, 2008)
(hereinafter “Bergfors”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of White, Bergfors, and
Nightingale et al. (US 2012/0197958 Al; published Aug. 2, 2012)
(hereinafter “Nightingale”).
2
Appeal 2017-000749
Application 13/457,599
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the May 28, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—12);
(2) the August 7, 2015 Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.” 2); and (3) the May
19, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2-4). We highlight and address,
however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
Responsive to detecting image of decodable indicia
Appellants argue the combination of White and Bergfors fails to teach
or suggest increasing the intensity of the backlight “z7? response to detecting
or receiving a byte sequence representing an image of decodable indicia, ” in
accordance with independent claims 1,9, 15, and 22. Br. 13. Appellants
argue Bergfors instead teaches increasing background illumination “in
response to user input.” Id. at 12—13 (citing Bergfors 146). More
specifically, Appellants argue Bergfors teaches increasing a LCD’s backlight
in response to a user initiating a call. Id. at 12 (citing Bergfors 146). As to
White, Appellants argue it instead teaches adjusting backlight intensity “in
response to ambient light, temperature, or user input.” Br. 13.
The Examiner finds the combined teachings of White and Bergfors
teach, or at least suggest, the disputed limitation. Ans. 2-4; Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds Bergfors teaches or suggests that a user initiates a call
by, for example, pressing a key which causes the device to receive input for
display and to illuminate the screen. Ans. 2—3 (citing Bergfors 113). These
3
Appeal 2017-000749
Application 13/457,599
keys are indicia, which comprise byte sequences, and which are transferred
in memory when being displayed. Final Act. 5 (citing Bergfors 146). The
Examiner finds Bergfors is, in fact, increasing backlight illumination
because the device is detecting that it is receiving data (i.e., user input) for
display. Ans. 4 (citing Bergfors 146). As to White, the Examiner finds it
teaches or suggests a user device for scanning a barcode, which is analogous
to initiating a call (i.e., scanning a barcode (user input) would transfer to
memory a byte sequence representing an image of decodable indicia). Ans.
3 (citing White col. 6,11. 30—33 (finding White’s device “may be used to
collect a signature, or to read a bar code”)).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in light of the
combined teachings of Bergfors and White to increase a display’s backlight
illumination in response to receiving a bar code (i.e., a byte sequence
representing an image of decodable indicia) as input for display via memory.
See Bergfors H 13, 46, 49 (teaching, inter alia, “a user initiates a call. . .
which causes the LCD backlight controller ... to temporarily increase the
background illumination levels . . . which may enable a user to more easily
view indicia displayed on the LCD”); White col. 6,11. 30-33; see also KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness]
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”);
see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take
into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the
4
Appeal 2017-000749
Application 13/457,599
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1,9, 15, and 22, as well as claims 2, 3, 5—8, 10, 12—14, 16—18, 20, 21,
and 23—26, as Appellants do not provide separate arguments for their
patentability. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11, and
19, based on our above findings, as Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for their patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—26.
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).
AFFIRMED
5