Ex Parte Tsai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2015

12921154 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/921, 154 09/05/2010
22879 7590 12/09/2015
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Leonard Tsai
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.
82236713 1666
EXAMINER
YANG, NAN-YING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2015 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEONARD TSAI
Appeal2014-000369
Application 12/921,154
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000369
Application 12/921, 154
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method to manage luminance levels on a display
device, comprising:
establishing a set of luminance values from a plurality of
test points on the display device;
determining a minimum luminance value from the set of
luminance values;
determining, for at least a selected one of the test points,
a variance from the minimum luminance value; and
using the variance from the minimum luminance value to
regulate a luminance level of the selected one of the test points,
wherein using the variance from the minimum luminance
value to regulate a luminance level comprises:
determining a voltage level for a voltage regulator
corresponding to the variance from the minimum luminance
value; and
reducing the output voltage of the voltage by an amount
corresponding to the variance from the minimum luminance
value.
2
Appeal2014-000369
Application 12/921, 154
- 1
Re} ections'
Claims 1--4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee (US 7 ,27 6,863 B2, Oct. 2, 2007) in view of Katayama
(US 2008/0191985 Al, Aug. 14, 2008). Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lee in view of Katayama, and further in view of Greier (US 6,801,220
B2, Oct. 5, 2004). Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 7,710,387 B2, May 4, 2010) in view of
Lee. Final Act. 7-11.
Claims 8-10 and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Lee, and further in view of
Katayama. Final Act. 12-15.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Lee, and further in view of Greier.
Final Act. 16-17.
Appellant's Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Lee fails to teach or suggest that using
the variance from the minimum luminance value to regulate a luminance
level comprises determining a voltage level for a voltage regulator
corresponding to the variance from the minimum luminance value." App.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18.
Except for our ultimate decision, the Examiner's rejection of these claims is
not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-000369
Application 12/921, 154
Br. 6-8 (hereinafter "minimum luminance value limitation"). Appellant also
contends "although Equation 1 of Lee may result in a reduced voltage for
some analogue dimming signals Va" (Reply Br. 5), "Lee describes adjusting
all luminance values to achieve a desired luminance regardless of whether a
specific luminance value is a minimum, a maximum or anything in between"
(Reply Br. 4 ).
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Katayama fails to cure the deficiencies of
Lee" (App. Br. 8-10).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner.
As to Appellant's above contention 1, we disagree. On page 5 of the
Answer, the Examiner provided further analysis supporting the rejection by
explaining how Fig. 7 (b) of Lee teaches the minimum luminance value
limitation.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner's following findings:
4
Appeal2014-000369
Application 12/921, 154
~~ ~p 3P 4~ 5P 6P 7P IP IP
mea11;un:~ment ~cation
FIG. 7b
As shown in figure 7b of Lee, the luminance level of
each section is adjusted based on the luminance differences in
difference locations including the variance from the minimum
luminance value by using voltage regulation such as analogue
dimming regulation (which uses an analogue dimming signal
Va) and PWM duty ration regulation (which uses a PWM
dimming signal Vp ). Lee discloses in details of an analog
dimming regulation method as shown in equation 1:
R2H
V2 .:::::: in --- ( ')Va
R28 + H29'
When the analogue dimming signal Va is increased, the
feedback voltage V2 is decreased, which results in a voltage
regulator operating to increase the amplitude of the output
voltage by increasing the amplitude of the driving current
[column 5, line 46-50], therefore, to increase the luminance
values of the backlight. Conversely, when the analogue
dimming signal Va is decreased or reduced, the feedback
voltage V2 is increased, which results in a voltage regulator
operating to decrease the amplitude of the output voltage by
decreasing the amplitude of the driving current [column 5, line
52-58], therefore, to decrease the luminance values of the
backlight.
Ans. 5---6.
5
Appeal2014-000369
Application 12/921, 154
The Examiner's Final Office Action analysis regarding the minimum
luminance value limitation being disclosed by Lee's Fig. 7 (b ), and the
further analysis discussing Lee's Fig. 7(b) (Ans. 4), are sufficient to show
that the argued limitation would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Moreover, Appellant acknowledges that "Equation 1 of Lee may result in a
reduced voltage for some analogue dimming signals Va" (Reply Br. 5). We
find that no more than this is required by the language of claim 1.
As to Appellant's above contention 2, we disagree. Appellant
premises this contention on a deficiency in the cited teachings of Lee. As
discussed above, we find no such deficiency.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and
18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 is
affirmed.
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
msc
6