Ex Parte Willis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

10078776 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
10/078,776 02/19/2002 Donald Henry Willis PU020037 5107
24498 7590 03/23/2017 EXAMINER
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC BRIER, JEFFERY A
4 Research Way
3rd Floor ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
rrmceton, JNJ IJKM.-i 2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD HENRY WILLIS
Appeal 2016-0083931
Application 10/078,776
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 3—6, 10-13, 18, and 20-24, which are
all the pending claims. App. Br. 3. Claims 1, 2, 7—9, 14—17, and 19 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Thomson Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008393
Application 10/078,776
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “[a] method and system for
reducing pixel interdependence errors in an imager caused by adjacent pixel
drive interdependence.” Abstract. Claim 20 is representative and
reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed elements:
20. A method for reducing distortion in images displayed on a
liquid crystal imager comprising:
receiving respective IRE pixel brightness values to be
provided to corresponding adjacent first and second pixels of
said liquid crystal imager;
estimating an actual brightness value produced by said
first pixel based, at least in part, upon a received IRE pixel
brightness value provided to said second pixel adjacent said
first pixel of said liquid crystal imager; and
modifying the received IRE pixel brightness value
provided to said first pixel in order to compensate for pixel
interdependence effects caused by said second pixel.
App Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
B. The Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 3—6, 10-13, 18, and 20-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kakehi (JP 07-005843; published
Jan. 10, 1995), in view of James F. Blinn, The World of Digital Video, IEEE
Computer Graphics & Applications, Vol. 12, No. 5, 106—112 (September
1992) (“Blinn”). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2016-008393
Application 10/078,776
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Kakehi’s compensating a voltage of pixels based on
voltages of adjacent pixels does not teach or suggest the claimed “estimating
an actual brightness value produced by said first pixel based, at least in part,
upon a received IRE pixel brightness value provided to said second pixel
adjacent said first pixel of said liquid crystal imager” as recited in
independent claim 20, because Kakehi’s system does not perform any
estimation at all, and, instead, only compensates for literal voltages. See
App. Br. 6. As argued by Appellant, a desired pixel brightness has only an
indirect relationship to an actual control voltage, and thus, compensating a
pixel for the literal voltage of an adjacent pixel does not teach or suggest the
claimed “estimating an actual brightness value produced by said first pixel
based, at least in part, upon a received IRE pixel brightness value provided
to said second pixel adjacent said first pixel.” See App. Br. 6—7 (citing Spec,
p. 7,11. 18—22). Appellant also argues the Examiner’s combination of
Kakehi and Blinn is improper, as actual control voltages have only an
indirect relationship to desired pixel brightness, and, thus, Kakehi’s control
voltages and Blinn’s Institute of Radio Engineers (“IRE”) units are not
equivalent measures that can simply be swapped. See App. Br. 7. Appellant
further argues the aforementioned arguments also apply to independent
claim 22.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Kakehi’s compensation of a pixel voltage based on voltage of
adjacent pixels teaches the claimed “estimating an actual brightness value
produced by said first pixel based, at least in part, upon a received IRE pixel
brightness value provided to said second pixel adjacent said first pixel,” as
3
Appeal 2016-008393
Application 10/078,776
Kakehi teaches the voltage compensation involves calculating a difference
value (e.g., deltaVD) used to compensate a voltage level of a pixel, where
the difference value is calculated using an estimated voltage level based on
the voltage level of the pixel and voltage levels of adjacent pixels (e.g.,
(2xVDb) - (VDa + VDC)). See Final Act. 9 (citing Kakehi || 14—16, 21—22);
see also Ans. 12—14.
Appellant’s argument that Kakehi’s compensation does not teach the
claimed “estimating” is not persuasive because it does not point out with any
particularity how Kakehi’s compensation and the claimed “estimating” are
different. Further, Appellant’s argument that the claimed “estimating”
involves an indirect relationship between a desired pixel brightness and a
control voltage is also not persuasive because: (a) the argued distinction is
not recited in Appellant’s claims; and, (b) the argument relies on a selective
passage in Appellant’s Specification, but Appellant’s Specification further
states a relationship between an input signal and a desired pixel brightness
can be direct or indirect. See Spec. p. 7,11. 16—18. Appellant’s argument
that the Examiner’s combination of Kakehi and Blinn is improper is also
unpersuasive, as we agree with the Examiner that: (a) the substitution of
Kakehi’s voltage levels with Blinn’s IRE units is merely a substitution of
one known element for another known element that yields no more than
predictable results; and, (b) Blinn suggests the substitution as Blinn teaches
the IRE scale is generally used by video engineers to measure voltage levels.
See Final Act. 11—12; see also Blinn at 107.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
cited references teach or suggest all the claim elements of independent
claims 20 and 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
4
Appeal 2016-008393
Application 10/078,776
independent claims 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We further sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 3—6, 10—13, 18, 21, 23, and 24, not argued
separately. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—6, 10—13, 18, and 20—
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5