Ex Parte Plut

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2018

12577493 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/577,493 10/12/2009
68103 7590 06/11/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William J. Plut
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.
0203-0521 4386
EXAMINER
ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM J. PLUT
Appeal2018-001457
Application 12/577,493
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN. and
BETH Z. SHAW Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-001457
Application 12/577,493
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-8and10-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows, with disputed
elements highlighted in italics:
1. A method for reducing power consumed by an
electronics device that includes a display device, the method
compnsmg:
increasing a size of a graphics item to create a larger graphics
item;
in response to increasing the size of the graphics item, altering,
if a portion of the graphics item includes a color that increases a
brightness, video information for at least a portion of the larger
graphics item to produce an altered larger graphics item with a
reduced luminance; and
displaying the larger graphics item based on the altered video
information without altering video information of other graphics items
displayed on the display device,
wherein the display device consumes less power when
displaying the larger graphics item based on the altered video
information than would be consumed for the larger graphics item
without the video information alteration.
(App. Br., Claims Appendix, 10.)
2
Appeal2018-001457
Application 12/577,493
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-8, 10, 11and13-19 are rejected underpre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawano (US 2002/0047590 Al,
Apr, 25, 2002), and further in view ofNakano (US 2003/0179219 Al, Sept.
25, 2003).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawano, in view of Nakano, and further in view of
Chandley (US 2006/0101293 Al, May 11, 2006).
ANALYSIS
In the Briefs, Appellant asserts, among other things, the claimed
elements in independent claim 1 "in response to increasing the size of the
graphics item, altering, ... video information" (hereinafter "the disputed
limitation") 1 is not taught by the combination of Kawano and Nakano (see
App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3). 2
We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the disclosures of
Kawano and Nakano coincides with that of Appellant. In particular, the
Examiner has not established, and we do not readily find, where the cited
portions of Kawano (i1i144-51, 59, 60, 62) or Nakano (i1i132, 42; Figs. 2, 9,
and 10) disclose the disputed limitation of altering video information in
response to increasing the size of the graphics item. To affirm the Examiner
on this record would require considerable speculation on our part. We
1 Independent claims 13 and 15 recite similar subject matter.
2 Although Appellant makes other arguments in the Briefs, we do not
address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal2018-001457
Application 12/577,493
decline to engage in speculation. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 15. Since we reverse
the rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the
rejection of each associated dependent claim.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, and 10-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, and 10-19 are reversed.
REVERSED
4