Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12397500 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/397,500 0310412009 Michael E. Miller
112458 7590 11/02/2016
Global OLED Technology LLC
13921 Park Center Road
Suite 380
Herndon, VA 20171
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95482/US 8322
EXAMINER
LEE,DAVIDJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
patents@globaloledtech.com
dgrowe@globaloledtech.com
nkee@globaloledtech.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL E. MILLER and CHRISTOPHER J. WHITE 1
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/3 97 ,5 00
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Global OLED Technology
LLC. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
Introduction
Appellants state their "invention relates to image processing
techniques for ... providing images with reduced power consumption or
increased luminance on emissive displays having four colors of subpixels."
(Spec 1.) Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of presenting an image on a display device
having color channel dependent light emission to reduce power
consumption by reducing luminance for some color
components, the method comprising:
receiving an image input signal including a plurality of
input pixel signals, each input pixel signal comprising three
color components;
selecting a low luminance color component for
luminance reduction;
calculating a reduction factor for each input pixel signal
dependent on the differences in luminance of the selected low
luminance color component and the remaining color
components of the input signal;
selecting a respective saturation adjustment factor for
each color component of each pixel signal;
producing an image output signal comprising four color
components from the image input signal using the reduction
factors and saturation adjustment factors to adjust the
luminance and color saturation, respectively, of the image input
signal;
providing a four-channel display device comprising color
channel dependent light emission; and
applying the image output signal to the display device to
cause it to present an image corresponding to the image output
signal.
(App. Br. 25 (Claims App'x).)
2
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
Rejections
Claims 1--4, 6-12, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Miller et al. (US 2004/0178974 Al; Sept. 16, 2004) and
Credelle et al. (US 200710064020 Al; Mar. 22, 2007). (Final Act. 3-11.)
Claim 5 stands rejected as obvious over Miller, Credelle, and
Kurumisawa et al. (US 6,496,174 B2; Dec. 17, 2002). (Final Act. 11-12.)
Claim 13 stands rejected as obvious over Miller, Credelle, and Kosuga
(US 2007/0120862 Al; May 31, 2007). (Final Act. 12-13.)
Claim 15 stands rejected as obvious over Miller, Credelle, and Shin et
al. (US 2008/0204380 Al; Aug. 28, 2008). (Final Act. 13-14.)
Claim 19 stands rejected as obvious over Miller, Credelle, and
Morisue et al. (2008/0150863 Al; June 26, 2008). (Final Act. 14--15.)
Claim 14 stands rejected as obvious over Miller, Credelle, Kosuga,
and Shin. (Final Act. 15-16.)
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-24), the issue before us
is whether the combination of Miller and Credelle teaches or suggests all
features of claim 1. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of
Appellants' contentions and disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Unless
noted otherwise below, for the rejection of claim 1, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-5, 16-18) and in the Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-11 ). We concur with the Examiner's
conclusions and provide the following analysis for emphasis.
3
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
Contentions
We discuss below the following contentions by Appellants:
(1) "[t]he combination of Miller and Credelle does not teach any
calculation that depends on luminance differences between a
selected color and other colors" as claimed (App. Br. 12; see
also Reply Br. 4---6);
(2) "Miller's concern with redistributing luminance rather than
changing luminance" (App. Br. 15) does not teach or suggest
"using the reduction factors and saturation adjustment factors
to adjust the luminance" (id. at 14) as claimed;
(3) Miller does not teach "calculating a reduction factor for each
input pixel signal dependent on the differences in luminance
of the selected low luminance color component and the
remaining color components of the input signaf' (Reply Br. 3;
id. at4--6);
( 4) neither Miller nor Credelle, nor their combination, teach
"selecting a respective saturation adjustment factor for each
color component of each pixel signal" (App. Br. 17-18; see
also Reply Br. 6-8), and the Examiner's citation to MPEP
§ 2112 indicates improper reliance by the Examiner on the
doctrine of inherency in the interpretation of Miller's teachings
for this requirement (App. Br. 19-21); and
( 5) there would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill to
combine the teachings of Miller and Credelle (id. at 21-23).
4
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
Discussion
Regarding contention 1, we disagree. Appellants do not persuade us
of error in the Examiner's finding that Miller's disclosure of adjusting the
luminance of individual red, green, and blue components of a pixel (while
maintaining the same overall luminance for the pixel) teaches luminance
adjustment calculations that depend on differences between a selected color
and other color components. (Ans. 4--5, 8-9 (citing Miller i-f 33); see also
Miller i-fi-130-32, 34--35).)
Regarding contention 2, Appellants argue "in Miller, the reduction
factors specifically do not adjust the luminance values." (App. Br. 13 (citing
Miller i-fi-134, 35).) We find this unpersuasive in view of the Examiner's
finding that, regardless of whether the overall luminance of an RGB or
RGBW pixel may not change, Miller teaches adjusting the luminance of the
constituent color components as claimed. (Ans. 9 (citing Miller i-f 33)
(explaining "[ c ]laim 1 recites that luminance is reduced for some color
components, and that the luminance of the image input signal is
'adjusted"'); see also Ans. 7, Final Act. 4 (both citing Miller i-fi-135, 59).)
Regarding contention 3, Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding
Miller paragraph 33 teaches "calculating a reduction factor" as claimed (see
Ans. 3--4, 9) because "[a] color gamut constraint is quite different from "a
reduction factor ... dependent on the differences in luminance ... ' as
recited." (Reply Br. 4.) Appellants argue Miller fails to render this claim
element obvious because, for the red, green, and blue comers of a
constrained RGB color gamut, when reducing luminance, it is only
necessary to consider the luminance value of one color component (because
5
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
at the comers of a color gamut, only one color component has a non-zero
luminance value). (Id. at 4--5.)
Appellants do not persuade us. That a particular color component
value "can be set without any consideration of or requirement for
dependence on any differences in luminance" (id. at 5 (emphasis added))
does not support the general proposition that Miller therefore fails to teach
or suggest calculating a reduction factor dependent on differences in
luminance for each input pixel signal as recited. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Miller:
teaches that calculating a reduction factor for each input pixel
signal is indeed dependent on the differences in luminance of
the selected low luminance color component and the remaining
color components of the input signal, because the amount of
reduction in luminance of the blue OLED depends on the
luminances of the red and green OLED's when constrained by
the condition requiring a particular color gamut setting, such as
a desaturated color gamut done to reduce power consumption.
(Ans. 5.)2
Regarding contention 4, the Examiner's rejection finds "Miller
implicitly teaches the notoriously well-known and rudimentary practice that
particularized color saturation adjustment factors can be applied to reach a
desired color saturation." (Final Act. 5 (emphasis added) (citing Miller
i-fi-138, 48; Credelle i16); see also Final Act. 16-18 (citing MPEP § 2112).)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because, for the three examples of
desaturation described by Miller in paragraph 33, "'in every case' the same
2 We note a broad but reasonable interpretation of claim 1 's "calculating"
step, in view of the Specification, encompasses determining (calculating) a
zero reduction factor for purely red, green, or blue pixels (i.e., at the gamut
comers, as discussed by Appellants (see Reply Brief 4--5)).
6
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
fraction 'half of the light' is provided by 'the more efficient white light
emitter,"' and therefore Miller cannot teach "selecting a respective
saturation adjustment factor for each color component of each pixel signal"
as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 18 (citing Miller i-f 35).) Appellants further
argue the Examiner improperly relies on MPEP § 2112 (see Final Act. 17-
18) to establish inherency. (App. Br. 19-21.)
The Examiner answers that Miller teaches the selecting step as
claimed:
because paragraph 003 5 teaches that each of the red, green and
blue OLED's are adjusted from a color-gamut saturated setting
to a color-gamut desaturated setting to reduce power
consumption. This constitutes a selecting a respective
saturation adjustment factor for each color component of each
pixel signal because each of the red, green and blue OLED's is
adjusted individually in a predetermined way to achieve the
particular saturation adjustment factor for each of the red, green
and blue OLED's... . Furthermore, paragraph 0049 teaches
that the saturation adjustment factors may be adjusted according
to the amount of ambient light . . . . "[S]electing a respective
saturation adjustment factor for each color component of each
pixel signal" is also a standard manipulation that is well known
in the art, and it has been routinely applied in the art to adjust a
color saturation, for example in certain color adjustments a user
can make to a television set. Office personnel may rely on their
own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of
a person of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2141 (II)C:
Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art).
(Ans. 6-7.)
Appellants reply that the Examiner misapplies MPEP § 2141(II)(C) 3
and that MPEP § 2144.03 ("Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or
3 See i-f 1 ("Any obviousness rejection should include, either explicitly or
implicitly in view of the prior art applied, an indication of the level of
7
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
'Well Known' Prior Art") applies. (Reply Br. 7.) Appellants specifically
argue the Examiner errs because because MPEP § 2144.03(A) states "[i]t
would not be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts
without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known
are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-
known" and "instant and unquestionable demonstration is not the case here"
(Reply Br. 7-8).
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826-27 (CCPA 1968) (citation
omitted). MPEP § 2144.03 states "an examiner may take official notice of
facts not in the record or rely on 'common knowledge' in making a
rejection." (i-f l (emphasis added).) In addition, we note MPEP § 2141
further states:
The Federal Circuit has stated that examiners . . . are "persons
of scientific competence in the fields in which they work" and
that their findings are "informed by their scientific knowledge,
as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary
skill in the art." [citation omitted] In addition, examiners "are
assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references
and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the
art." [citation omitted] See MPEP § 2141 for a discussion of
the level of ordinary skill.
MPEP§ 2141(II)(C).
ordinary skill. A finding as to the level of ordinary skill may be used as a
partial basis for a resolution of the issue of obviousness."),
8
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Miller, as
a whole, and in view of the teachings of Credelle, implicitly teaches
"selecting a respective saturation adjustment factor" as recited.
Regarding contention 5, Appellants argue "the Examiner has not
pointed to an appropriate teaching which suggests the motivation to combine
Miller and Credelle, and thus such combination is improper." We disagree.
A reason to combine teachings from the prior art "may be found in
explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the
ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the
problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game Tech., 184 F.3d
1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) ). "[A Jn analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to
logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill
in the art that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or
expert opinion." Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings for why one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine Credelle' s teaching regarding reducing blue
luminance with Miller's color adjustment methods. (See Ans. 8; Final Act.
5).
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1, and along with it the
rejection of claims 2-18, for which Appellants make no separate arguments.
9
Appeal2015-004258
Application 12/397 ,500
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-19.
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) (2013).
AFFIRMED
10