Ex Parte Scheibe

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 28, 2016

11836104 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111836, 104 08/08/2007 25235 7590 11/01/2016 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - Colorado Springs TWO NORTH CASCADE A VENUE SUITE 1300 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul 0. Scheibe 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. M-16380 US 2612 EXAMINER SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2016 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): patentcoloradospring@hoganlovells.com HLUSDocketing@hoganlovells.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte PAUL 0. SCHEIBE Appeal2016-000112 Application 11/836,1041 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this 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 reverse. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention "relates to light-emitting diode (LED) based signboards." Spec. 1, 11. 30-32. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Landmark Screens LLC. App. Br. 1. Appeal2016-000112 Application 11/836,104 1. A method for compensating for a chromaticity shift due to ambient light in an electronic signboard, the signboard having light emitting elements of four or more colors, the method comprising: measuring the ambient light reflected from the signboard; and for each pixel on the signboard, (a) finding a solution to colorimetric equations that relate in a psychovisual color space a desired light to be perceived as being displayed by the pixel to an additive color mixture of the ambient light and the light to be actually displayed by the pixel in the absence of ambient light, as expressed by intensities of the four or more colors of the light emitting elements, wherein, when the light to be actually displayed according to an exact solution of the calorimetric equations is physically realizable, the exact solution of the calorimetric equations is selected as the solution and wherein, when the light to be actually displayed according to the exact solution is not physically realizable, an approximate solution of the calorimetric equations is selected as the solution among physically realizable solutions, the approximate solution being selected according to a criterion that is based on a difference between the desired light and the additive color mixtures of the physically realizable solutions; and (b) controlling the light actually displayed by the pixel in accordance with the solution found. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanai (US 2003/0234794 Al; published Dec. 25, 2003) and Tsukada (US 2007/0110304 Al; published May 17, 2007). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanai, Tsukada, and Boldt, 2 Appeal2016-000112 Application 11/836,104 Jr. et al. (US 2006/0227085 Al; published Oct. 12, 2006) (hereinafter "Boldt"). (3) The Examiner rejected claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanai, Tsukada, and Glassner et al. (US 5,384,901; issued Jan. 24, 1995). DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding the cited portions of the combination of Kanai and Tsukada, and Kanai in particular, teach or suggest "finding a solution to colorimetric equations that relate in a psychovisual color space a desired light to be perceived as being displayed by the pixel to an additive color mixture of the ambient light and the light to be actually displayed by the pixel in the absence of ambient light," as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We find Appellant's arguments persuasive with respect to the cited portions of the combination, and Kanai in particular, failing to teach or suggest the above dispositive, disputed limitation. Appellant argues rather than teaching the claimed colorimetric equations that relate a desired light to be perceived to an additive color mixture of the ambient light and the light to be displayed by the pixels without ambient light, Kanai instead teaches equations applying corrections to pixel values corresponding to reference output values of a projector projecting light in a dark room (i.e., without ambient light). App. Br. 4 (citing Kanai i-f 61). Appellant contends, however, that none ofKanai's 3 Appeal2016-000112 Application 11/836,104 corrections addresses the claimed equations relating to the additive mixture of ambient light and displayed light without ambient light. See App. Br. 4--5 (citing Kanai i-fi-166, 88-95, 100-104, 110-112, 114--116, 119-123, Fig. 7); Reply Br. 5---6. Rather, Appellant argues Kauai's teachings of adjusting the output characteristics of the projector in application to account for the color of illumination involves only adjusting the color offsets from the reference values based on a difference between the color of the illumination and white and/or black of the projector. See App. Br. 5 (citing Kanai i-fi-188-95, 102- 104; Fig. 7); Reply Br. 7-8 (citing Kanai i1 87). In response, the Examiner finds the combination, and Kanai in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 12-13 (citing Kanai i-fi-166, 85-97). For example, the Examiner finds Kanai teaches or suggests correcting for, inter alia, the color of illumination, which would include ambient light - thus, teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 13 (citing Kanai i185); see id. (citing Kanai i-fi-186-97) (finding Kanai teaches correction amounts for the color of illumination in the application circumstances). The Examiner further finds the correction parameters for the color of the illumination are obtained by calibrations based on the color white and the color black from the projector. Ans. 16 (citing Kanai i-fi-f l 02- 104, 88, 90-92, 95). We are persuaded by Appellant's pertinent arguments. We agree with Appellant that the portions of Kanai cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the claimed colorimetric equations, which include portions concerning ambient light. Rather, Kanai' s teachings of correcting for the color of illumination relate to specific output characteristics of the projector in application. See Kanai i-fi-185-86, 87 (teaching a difference between the 4 Appeal2016-000112 Application 11/836,104 color of the illumination and white of the projector is obtained for offsets), i-f 88 (teaching the color of the illumination corresponds to a measured value of the black of the projector). Such teachings are insufficient to teach or suggest the claimed additive color mixture, which directly includes the ambient light. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 6, as well as the rejections of the remaining claims, which each depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9. REVERSED 5