Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12271321 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/271,321 11/14/2008 Michael E. Miller
112458 7590 08/31/2016
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.
95317/US 3885
EXAMINER
LI, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 8-10, 17, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to method for rapidly dimming an
electroluminescent display in a visually indistinguishable manner. Spec.
1:8-11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for controlling an electroluminescent (EL)
display comprising a plurality of EL emitters to reduce bum-in
on the display, the method comprising:
receiving a respective input image signal for each EL
emitter for each of a plurality of frames;
transforming the input image signals for a first one of the
plurality of frames to provide a plurality of first drive signals to
produce an image on the display;
recognizing when the input image signal represents a static
image; and
transforming the static input image signals for subsequent
ones of the plurality of frames to a plurality of second drive
signals using a dimming transform that operates on the input
image signals for each subsequent frame to provide a peak frame
luminance value for the subsequent frames wherein the dimming
transform includes an exponential function, whereby each
subsequent frame has reduced luminance as compared to a prior
frame to reduce bum-in.
Matsuura
De Haan
Yoshida et al.
Williams
Dai et al.
REFERENCES
US 2003/0016881 Al
US 2006/0055829 Al
US 2008/0068359 Al
US 2008/0116827 Al
US 2010/0080459 Al
2
Jan.23,2003
Mar. 6, 2006
Mar. 20, 2008
May 22, 2008
Apr. 1, 2010
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--6, 8, 17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshida and Williams. Final Act. 2-16.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yoshida, Williams, and Matsuura. Final Act. 16-17.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yoshida, Williams, Matsuura, De Haan, and Dai. Final Act. 18-20.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, and 17
Issue 1: Whether Yoshida teaches recognizing that an input
image signal represents a static image.
Appellants argue that Yoshida controls the luminance of motion
images, and that motion images are not "static" images. App. Br. 16.
Therefore, 1A'.Lppellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim l because
Yoshida does not teach or suggest "recogniz[ing] that an input image signal
represents a static image." Id. at 13. We disagree.
According to the Specification, recognizing a "static image" does not
require recognizing a motionless or "still" image in a plurality of
consecutive frames, as Appellants now contend. For example, recognizing a
"static image" includes recognizing a plurality of consecutively displayed
images where there is "very little change (typically less than 1 % change) in
the average intensity" between them. Spec. 11 :7-9. Yoshida teaches
controlling the luminance of consecutively displayed "images that are
relatively similar to each other." Yoshida i-f 743. Under a broad, but
reasonable interpretation, recognizing that an input image signal represents a
3
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
static image (e.g., due to little change in intensity), includes recognizing that
consecutively displayed images are relatively similar to each other as taught
by Yoshida. See Ans. 5.
Issue 2: Whether Yoshida teaches monotonically decreasing the
luminance of a static image over a plurality of frames.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Yoshida fails to teach "transforming the static input image signals for
subsequent ones of the plurality of frames ... whereby each subsequent
frame has a reduced luminance as compared to a prior frame." App. Br. 14--
17 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellants contend that "Yoshida
distinguishes between a 'frame' or 'basic image' on one hand, and an
'interpolation image' on the other," and argue that Yoshida does not control
the luminance of a plurality of frames because "Yoshida s interpolation
image is not a frame." Id. 14--15. We disagree.
1A'.Lppellants' Specification provides no limiting definition of "frame,"
and we agree with the Examiner that the term reasonably encompasses the
teachings of Yoshida. See Ans. 9. Yoshida teaches a method of displaying
images given two frame rates, an input image frame rate and a display frame
rate. Yoshida i-f 279. Yoshida teaches generating interpolated images from
the input images when the display frame rate is higher than the input image
frame rate, and displaying both the input and interpolated images. Id. at i-fi-1
280-281. However, Yoshida teaches both types of image contribute to the
display frame rate, which Yoshida defines as the period during which an
image is displayed, regardless of whether the image is an input image or an
interpolated image. See id. at i-f 6 (defining "[t]he period in which an image
is displayed ... as one frame period.").
4
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
Appellants next argue that Yoshida fails to teach transforming the
input image's luminance such that "each subsequent frame has a reduced
luminance as compared to a prior frame" because the luminance of image 5
is greater than the luminance of image 4 in Figure 24C of Yoshida, and
because the luminance of images 5-8 increase rather than decrease in Figure
24D of Yoshida. App. Br. 15-16. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
Figure 24C of Yoshida illustrates a sequential display of images in
which the luminance values of "four images ... [are] controlled to be
gradually decreased." Yoshida i-f 739. However, Yoshida teaches that "[t]he
number of images in which the luminance is controlled to be gradually
decreased is not limited to four and may be any number." Id. at i-f 7 41.
Thus, Yoshida teaches monotonically decreasing the luminance of any
number of displayed images/frames, i.e., so that "each subsequent frame has
1 1 1 • 1 ' • ,.. .,., • 1 1 1 • -1 1 a reaucea mmmance as comparea to a pnor rrame; as reqmrea oy cia1m 1.,
Issue 3: Whether Yoshida teaches monotonically decreasing the
luminance of a static image over a plurality of frames to reduce
burn-in.
1 We note that Figure 24 D of Yoshida illustrates the sequential display of a
plurality of images in which the luminance of a first set of four images is
gradually decreased, and the luminance of a second set of four images is
gradually increased. Yoshida i-f 744. The fact that Yoshida implements
different modes of luminance control (e.g., monotonically decreasing,
monotonically increasing, or alternatively decreasing then increasing) does
not discredit Yoshida's teaching to monotonically decrease the luminance
over any number of consecutive frames. Additionally, we note the recited
"plurality of frames" does not require decreasing the luminance of all frames
shown by the display; Yoshida's first four images comprise a "plurality of
frames" as claimed.
5
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
Appellants argue Yoshida teaches reducing electroluminescent (EL)
emitter bum-in via inversion driving rather than luminance reduction, and
therefore teaches away from monotonically decreasing the luminance of
displayed images to reduce bum-in. App. Br. 17-18. We are not persuaded
by Appellants' argument.
Yoshida teaches controlling the luminance of a plurality of displayed
images during a period when the images are relatively similar to one another.
Yoshida i-f 743. Yoshida further teaches controlling the luminance so that
successively displayed images are less luminous than previously displayed
images. Id. i-f 741. As disclosed in Appellants' Specification, bum-in of EL
emitters is caused by their degradation, which is in tum caused by the
integrated "current that is provided to each emitter." Spec. 1 :22-25.
Accordingly, Yoshida's method of reducing the luminance of successively
displayed images, and therefore the drive current supplied to the EL emitters
used to display those images, necessarily reduces the degradation and bum-
in of those EL emitters.
Moreover, Yoshida's teaching to reduce bum-in by inversion driving
does not teach away from reducing bum-in by decreasing the luminance of
consecutively displayed images because Yoshida does not criticize, discredit,
or discourage doing so. See In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from ... alternatives because such disclosure
does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.").
6
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
Issue 4: Whether the combination of Yoshida and Williams
teaches or suggests a dimming transform that includes an
exponential function.
Appellants argue that Yoshida's dimming function is a power-law
function, and therefore teaches away from using an exponential dimming
function. App. Br. 19. Appellants further argue that because Williams
applies an exponential dimming function to a single LED rather than to all of
the LEDs required to dim a displayed image, the combination of Yoshida
and Williams fails to teach or suggest "using a dimming transform that
operates on the input image signals for each subsequent frame ... wherein
the dimming transform includes an exponential function." Id. at 19--20
(emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, "[t]he test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Examiner
relies on Yoshida, not Williams, for applying a dimming function to the
luminance values of successively displayed images. See Final Act. 3-5.
The Examiner relies on Williams merely to show the suitability of using an
exponential dimming function on EL emitters, which are the hardware
components that ultimately display Yoshida's images having dimmed
luminance values. Id. at 5.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that by teaching the
use of a power-law function, Yoshida teaches away from using an
7
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
exponential function. As noted above, alternative embodiments which do
not criticize, discredit or discourage the claimed solution do not teach away
from it. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
Issue 5: Whether the combination of Yoshida and Williams would
yield a predictable result.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by not
articulating a finding that the combination of Yoshida and Williams would
yield a predictable result. App. Br. 20. Appellants next argue that the
combination is non-obvious because it yields more than a predictable result.
Id. at 21. Appellants finally argue that the combination is impermissible,
because neither Yoshida nor Williams recognize the benefits accruing from
the combination. We are note persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
In KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court rejected an overly rigid, formalistic approach to determining
obviousness. For example, the Court found "[r]igid preventative rules that
deny factfinders recourse to common sense ... are neither necessary under
our case law nor consistent with it." KSR Int'!, 550 U.S. at 421. Thus, we
disagree with Appellants' contention that the Examiner must articulate, like
some talismanic mantra, a finding that the combination of Yoshida and
Williams would have "achieved a predictable result." Such a "rigid
preventative rule" would deny the Board, as factfinder, "recourse to
common sense." Id.
Here, the Examiner proposes substituting Williams' exponential
dimming function for Yoshida's power-law dimming function in order to
achieve a desired light intensity pattern. See Final Act. 5. The proposed
combination, thus, falls under the rubric that a "combination of familiar
8
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'!, 550 U.S. at 416.
Although the Examiner did not specifically allege the predictable result
expected from replacing Yoshida's power-law dimming function with
Williams' exponential dimming function, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the combination would predictably result in
exponentially dimming the luminance values of Yoshida's successively
displayed images.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contention that the combination
of Yoshida and Williams does more than yield this predictable result. App.
Br. 21. Appellants do not identify any unpredictable result that would be
achieved by the combination, offer proof of any such unpredictable result, or
direct us to evidence substantiating any such unpredictable result. Id. at 20-
21. Accordingly, Appellants' contention is little more than attorney
argument, and "[a ]ttomey[] argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' contention that the
combination of Yoshida and Williams is improper because neither reference
recognized the benefit to be achieved by applying an exponential rather than
a power-law dimming function to Yoshida's successively displayed images.
See App. Br. 21. "In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose
of the patentee controls." KSR Int'l 550 U.S. at 419.
9
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
Issue 6: Whether Yoshida and Williams are combinable.
Appellants argue there is no reason to combine Yoshida and Williams
because Yoshida is concerned with motion blur between frames and power
consumption, and Williams is concerned with obtaining an aesthetically
pleasing, temporal, light intensity pattern. App. Br. 21-22. Appellants
further argue that Williams' "desired light intensity pattern is not relevant to
Yoshida, and does not constitute a satisfactory reason to combine those two
inventions." Id. at 23 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that:
Yoshida and Williams disclose the method of adjusting
luminance/intensity of EL/LEDs elements which are well known
and commonly used for display apparatus. Yoshida discloses to
adjust luminance /intensity of EL elements by using a power
function. Williams discloses to adjust luminance/intensity of
LEDs elements by using an exponential function. Therefore, one
of ordinary skill in the art could [have] applied the known
exponential function in the same way to the power function for
adjusting the luminance/intensity of EL/LEDs elements and the
results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in
the art. At the time of the invention was made, it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the prior art references to adjust the luminance/intensity of
EL/LEDs elements. The motivation would have been in order to
obtain a desired light luminance/intensity pattern for the display
apparatus.
Ans. 12-13. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Yoshida and
Williams, and the combination to have been proper.
10
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
For the reasons explained above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1. Appellants do not separately argue for the patentability of claims
4---6, 8-10, and 17. App. Br. 12-23. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a method for controlling an electroluminescent
display to reduce bum-in by transforming "static" input image signals using
an exponential dimming function, and applying the transform "when the first
input image signal is recognized as requiring a current to achieve the peak
frame luminance above a defined current threshold." App. Br. 36.
The Examiner finds Yoshida teaches applying a dimming function
when the brightness is higher than a threshold level of brightness, and
further finds Yoshida' s brightness and threshold level of brightness refer to
an EL emitter's current and threshold current because the brightness of an
EL emitter depends on the current supplied to the EL emitter. Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 because
Yoshida teaches controlling luminance based on a motion vector, a user
setting, or an external environmental factor such as surrounding brightness
or temperature. App. Br. 23-24 (citing Yoshida i-f 402). Therefore,
Appellants argue, Yoshida teaches controlling luminance based on the
ambient level of brightness in the environment, rather than on the brightness
of an EL emitter due to the current supplied to it as found by the Examiner.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The Specification identifies the peak frame luminance as "the
luminance produced by a display driven with a drive signal value
corresponding to a maximum input image signal value." Spec. 7:12-14.
11
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
Claim 20 requires controlling the luminance of an image when the current
required to drive an EL emitter to achieve peak frame luminance is above a
threshold. App. Br. 36. Yoshida teaches controlling the luminance of an
image when an environmental factor, such as brightness or temperature, is
above a threshold. Yoshida i-f 402. However, Yoshida's brightness or
temperature factors are external environmental factors, and are independent
of the current used to drive an EL emitter to achieve peak frame luminance.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites a method for controlling an electroluminescent
display to reduce bum-in by transforming "static" input image signals using
an exponential dimming function, and applying the transform "when the
temperature of the display is recognized as exceeding a defined temperature
threshold value." App. Br. 37.
As explained supra, the Examiner finds Yoshida teaches applying the
dimming function when the brightness is higher than a threshold level of
brightness. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida to apply
the dimming function when the measured temperature exceeds a temperature
threshold, rather than when the brightness exceeds a brightness threshold,
and that doing so was a matter of design choice that could be used to solve
problems due to manufacturing cost, heat generation, and power
consumption. Id. at 11-12.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 because
Yoshida teaches controlling luminance based on an external environmental
12
Appeal2014-007040
Application 12/271,321
temperature, rather than based on the "temperature of the display." App. Br.
29--30 (citing Yoshida i-f 3 86). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument.
As discussed supra, Yoshida teaches controlling the luminance values
of displayed images based on external environmental factors such as
brightness or temperature, rather than on the temperature of an EL emitter
driven to achieve peak frame luminance, or the temperature of a display
formed from a plurality of such EL emitters.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4---6, 8-10, and 17 are
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 20 and 21 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13