Ex Parte Van Rens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

12601291 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/601,291 11123/2009
77561 7590 12/17/2015
Duane Morris LLP (Entropic)
IP Department
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Van Rens
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.
Tl00138USN 6579
EXAMINER
TEITELBAUM, MICHAELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK VAN RENS and HANS JOOSTEN
Appeal2013-009837
Application 12/601,291
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Entropic Communications Inc.
(Br. 3.)
2 Claim 7 was canceled. (Second Amendment After Final (filed Mar. 15,
2013); Advisory Act. (entering amendment) (mailed Apr. 8, 2013).)
Appeal2013-009837
Application 12/601,291
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to removing artifacts on a display
screen by keeping digital processing parts active during blanking intervals.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A system for processing an analog input signal
representing a sequence of multiple images for rendering on a
display monitor, wherein each image is made up of odd lines
and even lines and each image is rendered by rendering the odd
lines more than once and the even lines more than once; the
system comprising:
an analog sub-system for receiving the analog input
signal and converting the analog input system into a digital
input signal; and
a digital sub-system for digitally processing the digital
input signal;
wherein the system is operative to keep the digital sub-
system processing during a blanking interval so as to maintain
a level of power consurnption of the digital sub-systern
independent of an occurrence of the blanking interval.
Rejections
Claims 1 and 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chauvel (US 5,128,760; issued July 7, 1992) and
Tomiyasu (US 5,699,076; issued Dec. 16, 1997). (Final Act. 2-5 (mailed
Dec. 5, 2012); Ans. 3---6.)
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chauvel, Tomiyasu, and Kobayashi (US 4,581,654; issued Apr. 8, 1986).
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 7.)
2
Appeal2013-009837
Application 12/601,291
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (Br. 12-16). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, the
Examiner's Answer (see Ans. 7-14), and the Advisory Action mailed
February 2, 2013. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Tomiyasu does not teach the wherein clause recited
in claim 1, i.e., wherein the system is operative to keep the digital sub-system
processing during a blanking interval so as to maintain a level of power
consumption of the digital sub-system independent of an occurrence of the
blanking interval. (Br. 12-14.) Appellants contend Tomiyasu is concerned
with eliminating noise lines on a display due to changes in video levels
before and after the blanking period, and that this has nothing to do with
maintaining a level of power consumption of the digital sub-system
independent of an occurrence of the blanking interval. (Br. 13.) Appellants
argue Tomiyasu does not mention maintenance of power level consumption
of a digital sub-system or any system or sub-system. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner that Tomiyasu need not mention power
level consumption in order to teach claim 1 's wherein limitation. (See
Ans. 8-11.) The Examiner finds adding data to the vertical blanking interval
(VBI) as taught in Tomiyasu will result in maintenance of a power level
consumption independent of the occurrence of the blanking interval because
"circuits which are normally non-active during the blanking period (VBI)
3
Appeal2013-009837
Application 12/601,291
are now active (processing data)." (Ans. 8.) We agree with this explanation,
which Appellants do not persuasively rebut, as discussed further below.
Appellants assert Tomiyasu does not teach that data is necessarily
processed during the entire blanking interval because "data on the second
and third lines of the vertical blank period may be anything, or [there] may
be none at all." (Br. 13 (citing Tomiyasu 9:51-53).) Appellants' assertion is
not persuasive, however, because Tomiyasu teaches at least one embodiment
that generates dummy data during the entire vertical blanking interval. (See
Tomiyasu 9: 51-5 3 ("Note that dummy data on the second and third lines
(L241 and L242) of the vertical blank period may have any data pattern, or
may not be generated."); see also Ans. 13 ("Pointing to one instance in
which it may not occur does not overcome the fact that the limitation is
taught in other instances and thus is known in the prior art.").)
Appellants further contend "Tomiyasu is not producing video data
during the blanking period; he is just holding the data in the video buffer for
application of the data to energize the display." (Br. 14 (citing Tomiyasu
15:29-16:11).) The portion ofTomiyasu cited by Appellants teaches, for
one method, maintaining data for a period of three lines (see Tomiyasu
16:3-8), but for another method data is converted at least during the first and
last lines of the vertical blank period (see Tomiyasu 15: 19-56). In addition,
as admitted by Appellants and discussed supra, Tomiyasu teaches that
dummy data on the second and third lines of the blank period "may have any
data pattern" (Tomiyasu 9:52-53), which suggests in those embodiments it
is processed and not merely stored in a buffer. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument.
4
Appeal2013-009837
Application 12/601,291
Appellants next argue the rejection is in error because "Tomiyasu
does not have a system in which the image is rendered by rendering the odd
lines more than once and the even lines more than once" (Br. 14). We are
not persuaded, however, because the Examiner relies on Chauvel as teaching
this limitation. (See Final Act. 2-3.)
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Chauvel and Tomiyasu
(see Br. 14--16). Appellants argue "Tomiyasu's environment is simple
matrix type LCD flat panel displays" (Br. 14), and that "[t]his is not the art
where one of ordinary skill in the art would look to find a power
maintenance solution to an artifact problem in a 2FH system with different
analog and digital sections" (Br. 15). The Examiner finds Tomiyasu
provides a motivation for implementing its method in Chauvel, namely to
remove noise lines. (See Ans. 11 (citing Tomiyasu, Abstract); Final Act. 3-
4 (citing Tomiyasu 9:28-35).) We agree with the Examiner this is sufficient
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the rejection,
even if it is not the exact problem sought to be solved by Appellants.
"Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
In light of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chauvel and Tomiyasu. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3---6, which are
not argued separately. We also sustain the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chauvel, Tomiyasu, and Kobayashi
5
Appeal2013-009837
Application 12/601,291
because Appellants argue claim 2 is patentable for the same reasons as claim
1 (Br. 16).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6.
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
ACP
6