Ex Parte Foster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2014

11726785 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/726,785 03/23/2007 Mark J. Foster 60269-0061 8588
7590 08/20/2014
LAURA GANOZA ESQ.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
ONE BISCAYNE TOWER SUITE 1900
2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
MIAMI, FL 33131
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2014 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 MARK J. FOSTER, MARY LOU JEPSEN,
JAMES GETTYS, and V. MICHAEL BOVE JR.
_____________

Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 16 and 29 through 40. Claims 17 through 28 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for using a display system that
includes a processor, a display device, and a first and second display
controller. The system operates such that, if no new frames are sent from
Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

2

the processor, the first display controller is set to an inactive state and
secondary display controller is commanded to control the display device.
See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for reducing power consumption of a
display subsystem present in a computational unit, the
computational unit comprising a display device, a processor, a
primary display controller, and a secondary display controller,
the method comprising the steps of:
switching the primary display controller from an active
state to an inactive state if no new refresh data is generated by
the processor;
generating, based on refresh data from the processor or
the primary display controller used to refresh the display
device, second refresh data configured to be used by the
secondary display controller to refresh the display device,
wherein the second refresh data is different from the first
refresh data; and
commanding the secondary display controller to refresh
the display device with the second refresh data independently of
the primary display controller and the processor, the display
device being present in the display subsystem, the secondary
display controller consuming substantially lower power than the
primary display controller.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 9, 11 through 16, 29, 36, and 38
through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kosaka (U.S.
Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

3

2005/0268236 A1; Dec. 1, 2005) and Stanley (U.S. 2004/0125099 A1;
July 1, 2004). Answer 5–13.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 8, 10, 30 through 35, and
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kosaka, Stanley, and
O’Gorman (U.S. 2004/0217954 A1; Nov. 4, 2004). Answer 13–23.

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 3 through 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages
1 and 2 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 29 is in error. Appellants’ augments with respect to the
rejection of these claims present us with three issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Kosaka
and Stanley teach generating second refresh data used to refresh a
display based on refresh data from the processor or the primary
display controller?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Kosaka
and Stanley teach commanding the secondary display controller to
refresh the display with the second refresh data?
3) Did the Examiner err in finding skilled artisans would combine the
teachings of Kosaka and Stanley?

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 26, 2011,
Reply Brief dated December 28, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on November 29, 2011.
Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the independent claims 1 and 29.

First issue:
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the first issue are directed to the
teachings of Stanley. Specifically, Appellants argue Stanley’s device makes
use of a single display unit controller, not two display controllers, and as
such, does not teach generating second refresh data based upon refresh data
from the processor or second display controller claimed. Brief 5.
Appellants assert the passages of Stanley cited by the Examiner merely show
two refresh rates are used dependent upon whether graphics-intensive events
have occurred and Stanley’s approach does not generate second refresh data.
Brief 6.
The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, finds that
Kosaka teaches a primary and second display controller, and Stanly is relied
upon to show two different refresh rates. Answer 23. Further, the Examiner
finds Kosaka teaches an embodiment where the second controller receives
data from the first controller. Answer 24. The Examiner construes refresh
data as being a type of display data and that, while Kosaka does not
expressly teach that two different refresh data are generated, Stanley does.
Id.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Kosaka teaches in Figure 3,
the use of two display controllers, and in one path depicted as path [B], the
Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

5

second controller receives data from the first controller. See also paragraphs
28 and 30–32. Further, Kosaka describes the second controller as
performing image processing on the data received from the first controller.
See paragraph 28. Thus, we are not persuaded that the combined teachings
of the references fail to teach generating second refresh data to refresh the
display based upon refresh data from the first display controller.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.

Second issue:
Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue are similar to those
discussed above with respect to the first issue in that they focus on Stanley
teaching use of a single display controller and not two display controllers as
claimed. Thus, Appellants conclude Stanley teaches away from using two
display controllers and commanding the second display controller to refresh
the display device.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. As discussed above, the Examiner has shown that
Kosaka teaches using two display controllers. As seen in Figure 3, the
second display controller provides refresh data to the display device.
Further, we are not persuaded by the teaching away argument. “‘A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.’” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550
F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam
Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

6

Appl'ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A reference does not
teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan,
and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into the
invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
While Stanley does teach using only one display controller which can output
different display data (output data at different refresh rates), we do not find
this disclosure the would discourage the skilled artisan from using multiple
display controllers to output different display data such as taught by Kosaka.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Third issue:
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings is
incorrect and that the combination would change the principle of operation
of the references. Brief 8. Specifically, Appellants assert Kosaka teaches
the use of two display controllers and that it teaches away from the claimed
device as Kosaka teaches the secondary display controller receives data from
an external source not the processor or primary display controller as
claimed. Id. at 9. Further, Appellants argue that Stanley’s teaching is
directed to using a single display controller and as such teaches away from
and is incompatible with using two display controllers. Id. at 9–10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Initially, we note as
discussed above, we concur with the Examiner’s findings that Kosaka
teaches an embodiment where the second display controller receives data
from the first display controller. Further, as discussed above, we do not find
that Stanley’s teaching of using one display controller teaches away from
Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

7

using two display controllers. Thus, Appellants’ arguments about changing
the principle of operation and teaching away are not persuasive. The
Examiner concludes the skilled artisan would:
combine Kosaka’s capability of switching between first and
second display controller with Stanley’s use of display
controller that switches refresh rates from a first refresh rate to
a second refresh rate based on the requirements of an
application as well as method for reducing refresh rate in order
to achieve/ provide a display device that is more efficient with
regards to power consumption.
Answer 7. We consider this rationale to be sufficient. We further note one
of the goals of Stanley’s system is to manage power consumption (see
Abstract, and paragraphs 27–34); thus, using Stanley’s teaching of reducing
refresh rate is also nothing more than using a known technique to perform its
known function. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the third
issue have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the skilled
artisans would combine the teachings of Kosaka and Stanley.
As Appellants’ arguments directed to representative claim 1 have not
persuaded us of error with respect the three issues raised, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Appellants’ arguments, on
page10 of the Brief, directed to the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 11
through 16, 29, 36, and 38 through 40 do not present us with any additional
issues. Similarly, Appellants’ arguments, on page11 of the Brief, directed to
the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 8, 10, 30 through 35, and 37
do not present us with any additional issues. Accordingly, we similarly
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2012-004095
Application 11/726,785

8

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 16 and 29
through 40 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

msc