Ex Parte Aitken et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12887243 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/887,243 09/21/2010
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
05/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew P. Aitken
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.
P9247US1 I APPL:0205 2109
EXAMINER
STEPP JONES, SHAWNA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW P. AITKEN and
ULRICH T. BARNHOEFER
Appeal2014-008876
Application 12/887,243
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008876
Application 12/887,243
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 9-11, 14--16, 19-23, and 25-29, which constitute all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[a] method and system for modifying a
pulse width modulation signal for controlling the backlit illumination
intensity of a liquid crystal display." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a display having a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)
adapted to generate light to illuminate a plurality of pixels in the
display;
a pulse width modulator adapted to generate a first pulse
width modulated (PWM) signal at a first frequency; and
display control logic adapted to:
modify at least one pulse of a series of pulses of the first
PWM signal to generate a pulse waveform;
increase an amount of time the at least one pulse is in an
on state relative to an amount of time that other pulses of the
series of pulses are in the on state;
increase an amount of time that a second pulse of the series
of pulses is in the on state relative to the amount of time that the
other pulses of the series of pulses are in the on state;
select a position of the first at least one pulse and the
second at least one pulse in the series of pulses such that the first
1 Appellants identify Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2014-008876
Application 12/887,243
at least one pulse and the second at least one pulse are non-
adjacent pulses in the series of pulses to minimize a possible
occurrence of a visual artifact on the display; and
transmit the pulse waveform to the display.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lewis US 2002/0005861 Al Jan. 17,2002
Lee et al. US 2006/0127081 Al June 15, 2006
Tonaret al. US 2008/0297879 Al Dec. 4, 2008
Iwasaki JP 2010/060746 Mar. 18, 2010
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 9-11, 14--16, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lewis. (See Final Act. 3-7.)
2. Claims 1--4, 19-22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwasaki and Lewis. (See Final Act. 7-12.)
3. Claims 5 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwasaki, Lewis, and Lee. (See Final Act. 12-13.)
4. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwasaki, Lewis, and Tonar. (See Final Act. 13.)
3
Appeal2014-008876
Application 12/887,243
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. With respect to claims 1, 9, 14, 19, and their dependents, "the
selection of the location of the increased first pulse and second [increased]
pulse within the group of pulses is performed specifically to minimize a
possible occurrence of a visual artifact on the display," a feature "utterly
missing from the cited art of record." (See App. Br. 10-15, 17-18.)
2. With respect to claims 26-29, Lewis does not teach a third non-
adjacent adjusted pulse. (See App. Br. 15, 18-19.)
ANALYSIS
Lewis describes pulse width modulated control of LED backlights
employing an additional timer to increase the resolution. (See Lewis i-fi-131-
45.) The Examiner correctly found that Lewis teaches first and second
increased pulses that are non-adjacent. This can be seen in Figure 6, for
example, reproduced below:
"3/8''
l'if/4'~ I ()-f/4r'
n· .. , I :
' ' I ' I
, ' 1 ' I
• " ,: : ,: ; }'- ~ l : '. ~ : I ~ : :
:"1UMS i'«UMS :"1UMS l"U . .J5MS '.(IU5:1fSJ((W;\1S j
L- ~. t. 1 ~ ____ .............. 1
: J.llS, IMS. !MS i JMS !MS IMS:
, .............. o::;;v ............ + ............ ~::;;.~::~J
>---~~-~-~-·6MS---·-·--··""·"
Figure 6 depicts a series of six pulses, where the first and third pulses, which
are not adjacent to each other, have an increased on state (0.5 MS) relative to
the last three pulses (0.25 MS). (See Lewis i147.)
4
Appeal2014-008876
Application 12/887,243
However, we find in Lewis no disclosure or teaching of selecting the
positions of non-adjacent increased pulses "to minimize a possible
occurrence of a visual artifact on the display." To the extent the reference
discusses avoidance of visual artifacts, it does so in the context of
maintaining an adequate update rate, not by ordering the increased and un-
modified pulses. (See Lewis i-f 45 ("A lengthy update rate can cause
perceptible flicker in the LCD display. However, so long as any required
update rates can be maintained, additional 'virtual bits' of resolution may be
added according to the present invention.").)
The Examiner's findings that Lewis "has the capability of increasing
an amount of time any of the pulses regardless of its order is on relative to
the amount of time other pulses are in an on state" and that "if the additional
timer period is sufficiently larger than the period of the modulator output,
these nonlinearities will be minimal, thus minimizing a possible occurrence
of a visual artifact on the display" (Final Act. 2-3) do not show that Lewis
"select[ s] a position of the first at least one pulse and the second at least one
pulse in the series of pulses such that the first at least one pulse and the
second at least one pulse are non-adjacent pulses in the series of pulses to
minimize a possible occurrence of a visual artifact on the display,' as
required by claim 1. The reference similarly does not meet the analogous
limitations in independent claims 9 and 14.
For this reason, we decline to sustain the Section 102(b) rejections of
claims 9-11, 14--16, 28, and 29 and, for the same reasons, we decline to
sustain the Section 103(a) rejections of claims 1-5, 26, and 27.
5
Appeal2014-008876
Application 12/887,243
While Appellants argue claim 19 with the other independent claims, 2
claim 19 differs in that it does not require two modified, non-adjacent
pulses. Instead, it recites "modifying one pulse of a group of pulses in the
PWM signal relative to each remaining pulse in the group of pulses" and
"selecting a location of the one pulse in the group of pulses to minimize a
possible occurrence of a visual artifact on the display." As Appellants offer
no argument directed to the specific language of claim 19, we sustain the
Section 103(a) rejections of claim 19 and its dependents, 20-23 and 25,
which are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(iv) (explaining that,
except in the case of inapplicable exceptions, "any arguments or authorities
not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board
for purposes of the present appeal").
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-5, 9-11, 14--16, and 26-29 are reversed.
The rejections of claims 19-23 and 25 are 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-IN-PART
2 See, e.g., App. Br. 10 ("Lewis never teaches selecting a position of a
second pulse in a group of pulses such that the second pulse is non-adjacent
to a first pulse to minimize a possible occurrence of a visual artifact on the
display, as generally recited by independent claims 1, 9, 14, and 19.").
6