Ex Parte Plut

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

12577474 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/577,474 10/12/2009
68103 7590 10/27/2016
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.
0203-0519 4341
EXAMINER
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 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):
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. PL UT
Appeal2015-004390
Application 12/577,474
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .. • .. ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....AI/'\. £',"1
Appeuant' seeKs our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-28, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004390
Application 12/577,474
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to reducing power consumed
by a display of an electronic device by suppressing luminance of video
information output on the display. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A method for reducing power consumed by an electronics
device that includes a display device, the method comprising:
displaying initial video information that contributes to an
initial aggregate luminance output by the display device;
determining the initial aggregate luminance output by the
display device as the display device displays the initial video
information;
in response to an indication for output of new video
information on the display device, determining a new aggregate
luminance to be output by the display device if the display device
were to display the new video information;
determining whether the new aggregate luminance for the
display device is greater than the initial aggregate luminance;
altering the new video information so as to produce altered
video information that contributes to a reduced aggregate
luminance for the display device that is less than or equal to the
initial aggregate luminance when the new aggregate luminance
for the display device is greater than the initial aggregate
luminance; and
displaying the altered video information, wherein the
display device consumes less power when displaying the altered
video information than would be consumed for display of the
new video information.
2
Appeal2015-004390
Application 12/577,474
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 12, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US 2005/053825 Al;
published Nov. 17, 2005) ("Kawamura"). Non-Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 4--8, 13, 15, 19, and 22-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kawamura and
Karidis et al. (US 2006/0087502 Al; published Apr. 27, 2006) ("Karidis").
Non-Final Act. 5-10.
Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kawamura and Chang et al.
(WO 03/091791 Al; published Nov. 6, 2003) ("Chang"). Non-Final
Act. 10-11.
Claims 11 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kawamura and Siwinski (US
7,012,588 B2; issued Mar. 14, 2006). Non-Final Act. 11-12.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err by finding that Kawamura discloses
"determining whether the new aggregate luminance for the display device is
greater than the initial aggregate luminance," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Kawamura fails to disclose every limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-
8; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant contends Kawamura fails to
disclose "determining whether the new aggregate luminance for the display
3
Appeal2015-004390
Application 12/577,474
device is greater than the initial aggregate luminance," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 7. With respect to this limitation, Appellant contends "Kawamura
merely discloses a relationship of a brightness at a peripheral area of a
screen and a brightness at a central area of the screen" and "Kawamura fails
to disclose any relationship between an aggregate luminance for new video
information in relation to an initial aggregate luminance." Id. Appellant
further contends Kawamura discloses comparing brightness of video
information to a preset threshold and fails to disclose "determining the initial
aggregate luminance output by the display device, and thereafter comparing
a new aggregate luminance to the initial aggregate luminance," as required
by claim 1. App. Br. 8.
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Kawamura
discloses "[ w ]here the amplitude level of the new/subsequent video signal
exceeds a certain threshold level, the brightness is limited to a certain
brightness level according to the power consumption." Ans. 4 (citing
Kawamura i-fi-132-35). The Examiner finds Kawamura's threshold level
corresponds to the recited "initial aggregate luminance" and, therefore, that
Kawamura discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 4--5.
We have reviewed Kawamura and agree with Appellant that
Kawamura fails to disclose the disputed limitation. Contrary to the
Examiner's findings, Kawamura does not disclose limiting the brightness
level (e.g., aggregate luminance) of new video information when the
amplitude level of the new video information exceeds the threshold. Instead,
Kawamura discloses ifthe input video signal is the second frame (e.g., the
"new video information"), the APC signal Sapc produced for the previous
frame (e.g., the "initial video information") is compared to the threshold to
4
Appeal2015-004390
Application 12/577,474
determine whether the APC function is actuated to limit the brightness of the
second frame to a certain brightness level. Kawamura ,-r 39. Kawamura fails
to disclose utilizing the aggregate luminance based upon new video
information to determine whether to alter (e.g., reduce the brightness level)
the new video information. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding Kawamura discloses the disputed limitation.
Because we find this issue to be dispositive as to the rejection of all
the claims, we do not reach Appellant's remaining contentions.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1;
independent claims 12 and 20, which recite similar limitations; and claims 2,
3, 14, and 21, which depend from claims 1, 12, and 20.
Claims 4--11, 13, 15-19, and 21-28 depend from claims 1, 12, and 20.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kawamura and
various additional references. We find these additional references fail to
cure the deficiencies of Kawamura identified above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 4--11, 13, 15-19, and
21-2 8 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-28.
REVERSED
5