Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11826444 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/826,444 07/16/2007 Te-Mei Wang 67507-007 2456
65358 7590 03/20/2014
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2014 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)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TE-MEI WANG and PO-JEN TSAI
____________________

Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is AU Optronics Corp.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 1, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action
mailed November 29, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification
filed July 21, 2008 (“Spec.”).
App
App

a div
impr
imag
and
block
of ea
S11.
weig
aver
weig
valu
eal 2012-0
lication 11
Appellan
ided back
ove a cont
e quality o
[0006]-[00
can be co
ch block,
Appellan
As show
A weight
hted opera
age value o
hted color
es by the n
00266
/826,444
ST
ts’ invent
light block
rast ratio o
f the LCD
08]. Acco
ntrolled b
shown in F
ts’ FIG. 1
n in FIG.
ed color v
tion on a m
f luminan
values of
umber of p
ATEMEN
Appella
ion relates
of a liqui
f an imag
during di
rding to A
ased on an
IG. 1. Id.
is reprodu
1, an imag
alue of eac
aximum
ce of each
the pixels
ixels in e
2
T OF TH
nts’ Inven
to a meth
d crystal d
e displaye
splaying d
ppellants,
averaged
at [0010]
ced below
e is divide
h pixel is
color valu
block is o
in each bl
ach block
E CASE
tion
od for con
isplay (LC
d on the L
arker imag
luminanc
weighting
.
.
d into a pl
obtained b
e of each p
btained by
ock and di
at S13. Id.
trolling lum
D) in orde
CD and en
es. Spec.
e of each b
value of l
urality of b
y perform
ixel at S1
accumula
viding acc

inance o
r to
hance an
¶¶[0001]
acklight
uminance

locks at
ing a
2. Id. An
ting
umulated
f

Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444

3

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced with disputed
limitations emphasized below:
1. A method for controlling luminance of a divided
backlight block of a liquid crystal display (LCD), comprising:
inputting an image;
dividing the image into a plurality of blocks, in which
each block has a plurality of pixels;
obtaining a maximum color value for each pixel based on
a set of color values thereof;
performing a selectively established weighted operation
on the maximum color value of each pixel to obtain a weighted
color value for the pixel; and
accumulating the weighted color values of the pixels in
each block, and dividing the accumulated value by the number
of the pixels in each block to generate for each block
independent of the others an averaged weighting value of
luminance of the block.

Evidence Considered
Hong US 2006/0109234 A1 May 25, 2006
Fletcher US 2007/0188438 A1 Aug. 16, 2007
Lo US 2007/0216636 A1 Sep. 20, 2007

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatenable over Hong and Fletcher. Ans. 4-6.
(2) Claims 9-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatenable over Hong, Fletcher, and Lo. Ans. 7-8.

Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444

4

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatenable over Hong and Fletcher, and claims 9-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatenable over Hong, Fletcher, and Lo. In
particular, the appeal turns on: (1) whether Hong and Fletcher are properly
combinable; and (2) whether the Examiner’s combination of Hong, Fletcher,
and Lo would result in Appellants’ claimed invention. App. Br. 11-16.

ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-8 based on Hong and Fletcher
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Hong
discloses a method for controlling luminance of a divided backlight section
of a liquid crystal display (LCD) comprising dividing an image into a
plurality of blocks each block having a plurality of pixels; obtaining a
maximum color value for each pixel based on a set of color values thereof;
and accumulating maximum color values of the pixels in each block and
dividing the accumulated value by the number of pixels in each block to
generate an average value of luminance for each block. Ans. 4-5 (citing
Hong, ¶¶[0044]-[0046]; TABLE 1; FIG. 4 and FIG. 5).
The Examiner acknowledges that Hong does not teach “performing a
selectively established weighted operation on a the maximum color value of
each pixel to obtain a weighted color value for the pixel” and “accumulating
the weighted color values of the pixels in each block, and dividing the
accumulated value by the number of the pixels in each block to generate …
Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444

5

an averaged weighting value of luminance of the block,” but cites Fletcher
for disclosing these features, i.e., weighted color values of the pixels in each
block. Id. at 5 (citing Fletcher, ¶¶[0053]-[0054] and [0063]).
Based on these disclosures and their same field of endeavors, the
Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious … to perform a
selectively established weighted operation as taught by Flether [sic,
Fletcher] on the maximum color value of each pixel of Hong, such that the
method of Hong accumulates the weighted color values in each block, and
generates an averaged weighting value of luminance of the block, in order to
take into consideration the luminosity of different colors.” Id. at 6 (citing
Fletcher, ¶[0053]).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Hong and Fletcher is improper. App. Br. 11-13. In particular, Appellants
argue that Hong selects only one of RGB color values and uses an average
of a single grayscale pixel value for display adjustment, whereas Fletcher
factors all three RGB color values for display adjustment and relies on a
weighted three color average. Id. at 12. According to Appellants, Hong and
Fletcher are not compatible, cannot function together in a modular device
and, as such, cannot be combined in the manner suggested by the Examiner.
Id. at 12-13. Appellants further argue that Fletcher teaches away from the
use of a single grayscale pixel value, as disclosed by Hong. Id.
However, we do not these arguments persuasive. As correctly found
by the Examiner, Hong teaches using a single pixel grayscale for each pixel
in determining luminance. Ans. 8. Fletcher teaches a weighting operation
based on the gamma curve to balance the luminosity of different colors. Id.
at 8-9 (citing Fletcher, ¶¶[0053]-[0054]; Equation 2 and Equation 3).
Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444

6

Moreover, and contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Fletcher actually teaches
that an average weight value can also be obtained based on a single color in
the manner consistent with Hong. Id. at 9 (citing Fletcher, ¶[0063]).
Consequently, we find the Examiner’s combination of Hong and Fletcher
discloses the disputed limitations of Appellants’ claim 1, and do not find that
Fletcher teaches away from Hong or Appellants’ claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not provided us with
sufficient reason to disagree with the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Hong and Fletcher and, likewise, have not persuaded us of any prejudicial
error in the Examiner’s rejection of Appellants’ independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2-8, Appellants simply quote each
claim limitation. Appellants’ Brief is otherwise silent as to why these claims
are patentable over Hong and Fletcher. Appellants present no substantive
arguments regarding the claims other than merely restating the limitations
called for in the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). For the same
reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-8.

Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444

7

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 9-22 based on Hong, Fletcher, and Lo
With respect to independent claim 13, the Examiner further cites Lo
for disclosing explicitly the use of “a look up table” to obtain a weighted
color value. Ans. 7 (citing Lo, ¶¶[0010] and [0022]). The Examiner then
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious … to use a preselected look up
table as taught by Lo to get the corresponding weighted color value as taught
by Hong … Fletcher.” Id.
Appellants argue the reliance on Lo is based on impermissible
hindsight and Lo cannot cure the deficiencies of Hong and Fletcher. App.
Br. 14-16. However, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Lo
is simply cited for the use of “a look-up table.” However, such a look-up
table is not necessary since Hong already teaches using the same look-up
table to store peak values of a pixel. See Hong, ¶¶[0046]-[0047]; FIG. 8 and
FIG. 10. Moreover, as previously discussed, we find the Examiner’s
combination of Hong, Fletcher and Lo discloses the disputed limitations of
Appellants’ claim 13, and do not find the Examiner’s reliance of Fletcher or
Lo is based impermissible hindsight. We further agree with the Examiner
that Fletcher provides “a rationale of providing luminance values which
correspond to the different perceived luminances [sic] of the human eye for
red, green, and blue colors, and therefore provides proper motivation and
reasoning to modify the color values of Hong.” Ans. 10.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
any error in the Examiner’s rejection of Appellants’ independent claim 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 13.
Appeal 2012-000266
Application 11/826,444

8

With respect to dependent claims 9-12 and 14-22, Appellants again
each claim limitation and present no substantive arguments regarding the
patentability of these claims. For the same reasons discussed, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-12 and 14-22.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting: (1) claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hong and Fletcher; and (2) claims 9-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatenable over Hong, Fletcher, and Lo.

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

sld