Ex Parte Hajjar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13153304 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/153,304 06/03/2011 Roger HAJJAR
107821 7590 08/31/2016
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Prysm
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
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.
PRSM/0009 8692
EXAMINER
REGN,MARKW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
sversteeg@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER HAJJAR and ANAND BUDNI 1
Appeal2015-000945
Application 13/153,304
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 20, 21, 23-30, 32-37, and 39--41. Claims 9, 16, 18,
19, 22, 31, and 3 8 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Prysm, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000945
Application 13/153,304
Introduction
Appellants state their invention relates "to methods of dynamically
controlling power consumed by and brightness of display screens." Spec.
i-f 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of displaying an image on an electronic display
system, comprising:
receiving frames of image data to be displayed, wherein
the image data includes an optical output intensity of each pixel
and subpixel of a display device of the display system to
produce the image or frame and the sub-pixels are red, green,
and blue subpixels;
determining an average power level for displaying one or
more frames of image data, wherein the average power level is
defined as the ratio of the power required by the display device
to produce an image at the power required by the display device
to produce a fully white screen;
determining an adjusted optical output intensity for each
pixel and subpixel as a function of the average power level and
the optical output intensity of each subpixel;
adjusting a parameter of the electronic display system
in accordance with the average power level, wherein adjusting
a parameter comprises scaling the brightness of each pixel
and subpixel to the adjusted optical output intensity; and
wherein the electronic display system includes multiple
display devices and each display device displays a portion of
the image data.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App'x) (dispositive limitation emphasized).
Rejections
Claims 1, 10, 17, 20, 21, 23, 32, 33, 36, and 37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mizukoshi et al. (US 2008/0297448 Al;
Dec. 4, 2008) ("Mizukoshi") and Midland (US 4,368,485; Jan. 11, 1983).
Final Act. 2-8.
2
Appeal2015-000945
Application 13/153,304
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 24, 25, 27-30, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mizukoshi, Midland, and Mizukoshi et al.
(US 2004/0201582 Al; Oct. 14, 2004) ("Mizukoshi II"). Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 4 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Mizukoshi, Midland, and Kerofsky (US 2009/0167751 Al; July 2,
2009). Final Act. 12-13.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Mizukoshi, Midland, and Kent et al. (US 2008/0291140 Al; Nov. 27, 2008)
("Kent"). Final Act. 13-16.
Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Mizukoshi, Midland, Kent, and Mizukoshi II. Final Act. 16-18.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Mizukoshi, Midland, Kent, and Kerofsky. Final Act. 18-19.
Claims 39 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Mizukoshi, Midland, and Inoue et al. (US 2008/0266332 Al; Oct. 30,
2008) ("Inoue"). Final Act. 19-20.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Mizukoshi, Midland, Kent, and Inoue. Final Act. 20-22.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue2 is whether the cited prior art, and Mizukoshi in
particular, teaches or suggests adjusting the brightness of each pixel and
subpixel as required by each of Appellants' independent claims.
2 Because the issue we discuss below is dispositive for our reversal of the
Final Rejection, we do not address other arguments raised by Appellants.
3
Appeal2015-000945
Application 13/153,304
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Mizukoshi i-fi-122 and 7 4 teach the "adjusting"
requirement of claim 1. Final Act. 4. These two paragraphs are part of
Mizukoshi's teachings for converting an RGB (Red, Green, and Blue) signal
into an RGBW (Red, Green, Blue, and White) signal to enable control of the
brightness of pixels, which contain RGBW subpixels, by adjusting only the
brightness of the W subpixels. See Mizukoshi i-fi-121-52.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Mizukoshi teaches or
suggests "scaling the brightness of each pixel and subpixel to the adjusted
optical output intensity" as claimed because "[ t ]he claims require 'scaling
the brightness of each pixel and subpixel', yet the Examiner has identified
only adjustment of the W dot. The RGB dots are in no manner changed.
Without adjustment of the RGB dots, the claim limitation is simply not
met." App. Br. 10; see also id. at 8-9.
The Examiner answers by finding Mizukoshi' s conversion of RGB to
RGBW constitutes disclosure of scaling the brightness of each pixel and
subpixel. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner further "uses engineering logic" in
finding Mizukoshi teaches the disputed limitation because "equal parts R, G
and B lights generates [sic] white light, then one skilled in the art would
know that if a white light is added, in order to generate the pixel in
accordance with the R, G, B signal inputted, R', G' and B' [i.e., the adjusted
RGB values when converting from RGB to RBGW] necessarily must be
lower." Id. at 4. Appellants in reply argue that regardless of Mizukoshi's
converting an input RGB signal to an RGBW signal, which undisputedly
necessitates converting input RGB values into R'G'B' values in order to
establish the W values in the RGBW signal, for adjusting brightness "the R,
4
Appeal2015-000945
Application 13/153,304
G and B dots do not change, but rather, [only] the W dot changes [sic-dots
change]." Id.
We agree with Appellants. Although the Examiner correctly finds
Mizukoshi teaches generating output RGB values that differ from input
RGB values when converting from RGB to RGBW, this "scaling" of input
RGB values to adjusted output RGB values in the RGBW signal is not for
adjusting or scaling the brightness of the composite pixels made from the
subpixels. In other words, converting from RGB to RGBW may scale the
brightness of the RGB subpixels, but such scaling is so that the input RGB
signal values and the output RGBW signal values result in the same
composite pixel brightness. Adjusting or scaling of pixel brightness in
Mizukoshi occurs by adjusting only the W subpixel values, without scaling
the (converted) RGB subpixel values. Mizukoshi therefore does not teach or
suggest scaling the brightness of each pixel and subpixel as recited by the
dispositive limitation. See Reply Br. 2--4.
We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11, 17, 23, and
33, each of which includes a version of the dispositive limitation. We
accordingly also do not sustain the rejection of the pending dependent claims
2-8, 10, 12-15, 20, 21, 24--30, 32, 34--37, and 39--41.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15,
17, 20, 21, 23-30, 32-37, and 39--41 is reversed.
REVERSED
5