Ex Parte Mori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 2018

14378188 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/378,188 08/12/2014 Tomohiko Mori 15924 7590 12/28/2018 Harness, Dickey & Pierce P.L.C. P.O. Box 8910 Reston, VA 20195 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. l 7240SL-000001-US-NP 9351 EXAMINER GUPTA, PARUL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2018 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com ddaley@hdp.com jhill@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOMOHIKO MORI, KAZUNARI TOMIZA WA, MAKOTO HASEGAWA, and YUICHI YOSHIDA 1 Appeal 2018-004881 Application 14/378,188 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention The Specification discloses a display apparatus having a "correction unit (24) [that] corrects a gradation of a pixel (121) located adjacent to a pixel (121) displayed with a gradation for which predetermined overshoot 1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-004881 Application 14/378,188 driving is difficult in the next display frame to a gradation for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible." Abstract. Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized) 1. A liquid crystal display apparatus comprising: a liquid crystal panel having a plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix pattern in a display area; and a processor configured to improve a viewing angle of the liquid crystal panel by, switching between a high gradation display and a low gradation display for each pixel every display frame, the high gradation display being a display mode in which the processor displays a gradation higher than a gradation of an input image at one of two adjacent pixels in the display area, and the low gradation display being a display mode in which the processor displays a gradation lower than a gradation of an input image at another pixel of the two adjacent pixels, determining whether either of the two adjacent pixels is a specified pixel, the specified pixel being a pixel with a gradation in a predetermined range of gradation (i) between a maximum gradation that the pixel is able to display and a first predetermined gradation lower than the maximum gradation or (ii) between a minimum gradation that the pixel is able to display and a second predetermined gradation that is higher than the minimum gradation,for which predetermined overshoot driving is difficult, and when the processor determines that a first one of the two adjacent pixels is the specified pixel, correcting a gradation of a second one of the two adjacent pixels to a gradation for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible, and displaying the first one of the two adjacent pixels with the predetermined range of gradation and the second one of 2 Appeal 2018-004881 Application 14/378,188 the two adjacent pixels with the gradation that is corrected in the display frame. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0017991 Al; published Jan. 27, 2005) ("Yamazaki"), Bradburn (US 2002/0085237 Al; published July 4, 2002) ("Bradburn"), Furukawa et al. (US 2010/0315443 Al; published Dec. 16, 2010) ("Furukawa"), and Ishihara (US 2008/0129672 Al; published June 5, 2008) ("Ishihara"). Final Act. 2-15. EXAMINER'S DETERMINATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Yamazaki to teach or suggest recitations such as those directed to switching between a high gradation display and a low gradation display for each pixel every display frame. Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Yamazaki ,r 86). In particular, the Examiner finds Yamazaki teaches "separate gradations of adjacent pixels in the display area." Ans. 3 (citing Yamazaki ,r,r 76-78, 87). The Examiner relies on Bradburn to teach or suggest determining whether either of two adjacent pixels is a specified pixel and correcting a gradation of a second one of the two adjacent pixels. Final Act. 4 (citing, e.g., Bradburn ,r 34, Fig. 2); see also Ans. 3. The Examiner does not rely on Yamazaki and Bradburn alone, however, to teach or suggest the specified pixel being a pixel with a gradation in a predetermined range of gradation for which predetermined overshoot driving is difficult. Final Act. 5. The Examiner instead relies on Furukawa's gradation value shift response speeds to teach or suggest modifying Yamazaki and Bradburn to make the claimed determination. Id. 3 Appeal 2018-004881 Application 14/378,188 at 5---6 ( citing, e.g., Furukawa ,r,r 87-88, 122, Fig. 3); see also Ans. 3 ("Furukawa is relied upon to teach the ranges of the gradations for which overshoot driving is difficult"). The Examiner does not rely on Yamazaki, Bradburn, and Furukawa to teach or suggest correcting to a gradation for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible. Final Act. 6. The Examiner instead relies on Ishihara's teaching of overshoot driving carried out by correcting an input image signal and increasing an output gradation level to teach or suggest modifying Yamazaki, Bradburn, and Furukawa to make the claimed correction. Id. ( citing, e.g., Ishihara ,r,r 54-- 55, 7 6-81 ); see also Ans. 4 ("Ishihara is merely used to teach switching to a gradation for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible"). APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS AND OUR ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's determinations as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner's conclusions. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying on Furukawa, which Appellant notes "relies upon the panel temperature dependent gradation shift." Br. 9. Appellant argues "in any liquid crystal display panel, two adjacent pixels cannot have different temperatures." Id. at 10. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner's unrebutted findings show that Yamazaki and Bradburn teach or suggest pixel-specific determinations. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3. Moreover, Furukawa teaches 4 Appeal 2018-004881 Application 14/378,188 that response speeds are affected not just by temperature, but by start gradation, reached gradation, and the distance between slit 46 and rib 4 7. See Fukurawa ,r,r 85-86, Figs. 3--4. Thus, Furukawa does not "simply determine whether gradation for the entire display panel may be difficult due to the display panel having a particular temperature." Br. 11. Therefore, we find the Examiner properly relies on Furukawa's gradation-dependent response speeds to teach or suggest a specified pixel being a pixel with a gradation in a predetermined range of gradation for which predetermined overshoot driving is difficult. See Final Act. 5---6. Appellant further argues the Examiner erred because Ishihara merely describes the relationships between the gradation levels of the (N-1 )-th frame and the N-th frame of the same pixel and has nothing to do with evaluating one specified pixel of a pair of adjacent pixels, and correcting a gradation of a second one of the pair of adjacent pixels to a gradation level for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible. Br. 12. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive, however, because the Examiner merely relies on Ishihara "to teach switching to a gradation for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible." Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner's unrebutted findings show that Yamazaki, Bradburn, and Furukawa-in combination with Ishihara-teach or suggest "the concept of evaluating one specified pixel of a pair of adjacent pixels and then correcting a gradation of a second one of the pair of adjacent pixels to a gradation level for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible." Id. Therefore, we find the Examiner properly relies on Ishihara to teach or suggest correcting to a 5 Appeal 2018-004881 Application 14/378,188 gradation for which overshoot driving stronger than the predetermined overshoot driving is possible. Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-9, which Appellant does not argue separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6