Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 25, 2021

2020003092 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2021)

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. 14/560,726 12/04/2014 Shunpei Yamazaki 0553-1210 6363 24628 7590 08/25/2021 HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP WELSH & KATZ 120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA 22ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER WU, ZHENZHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2021 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 SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI and HAJIME KIMURA Appeal 2020-003092 Application 14/560,726 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-003092 Application 14/560,726 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed invention is directed to “a display device, an electronic device, or the like that makes it easy to photograph a user’s face looking at a display screen, or the like, in a dark place” by “displaying an image for illuminating a subject with light.” Spec. ¶¶ 8, 15. Claims 1–4, 11, 13, 14, and 16–28 are pending; claims 1 and 3 are independent. Appeal Br. 20–23. Claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An electronic device comprising: a first display portion comprising a first region; a second display portion comprising a second region; and an imaging device configured to obtain an image of a subject, wherein the first region and the second region are configured to illuminate the subject with illuminating light when the imaging device obtains the image of the subject, wherein a color of the illuminating light emitted from the first region and a color of the illuminating light emitted from the second region are the same, wherein a direction of the illuminating light emitted from the first region and a direction of the illuminating light emitted from the second region are different from each other, and wherein the electronic device is capable of being folded between the first display portion and the second display portion. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-003092 Application 14/560,726 3 References and Rejections2 Claims 1, 2, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Imamura (US 2011/0285647 A1; Nov. 24, 2011) and Ledbetter (US 2013/0044249 A1; Feb. 21, 2013). Non-Final Act. 3–6. Claims 3, 4, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Imamura et al., Ledbetter, and Moskovchenko (US 2015/0002735 A1; Jan. 1, 2015). Non- Final Act. 6–11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant did not make are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See Appeal Br. 9, 18. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner errs and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because “Imamura does not appear to disclose purposely illuminating a subject of an image” and Ledbetter’s displays “are completely different, separate and independent devices.” Appeal Br. 12, 14. Appellant contends “one … skilled in the art 2 The Examiner finds claims 13 and 14 contain allowable subject matter, but objects to those claims as dependent from a rejected base claim. See Non- Final Act. 11. We do not address claims 13 and 14 further in this decision. MPEP § 706.01 (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, Last Revised June 2020). Appeal 2020-003092 Application 14/560,726 4 would not easily conceive to apply the different displays . . . of Ledbetter into the first and second main units . . . of the device . . . of Imamura,” as “Ledbetter uses completely different, separate and independent devices and is far removed from the claimed invention and the disclosure in Imamura.” Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted). We agree with the Examiner that Imamura and Ledbetter together teach or suggest the disputed limitations of independent claim 1. Imamura, as applied by the Examiner, teaches a device having both a “display panel 24 (first screen), such as an LCD,” and a “display panel 15 (second screen), such as an LCD, provided with a . . . camera lens 19, etc.” Imamura ¶ 32 (emphasis omitted); see also Non-Final Act. 4. The first and second screens (corresponding to the claimed display regions) are connected by a hinge and are rotatable with respect to each other. See Imamura Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner correctly relies on Ledbetter to teach displays configured to project illuminating light as claimed, because Ledbetter’s “display[s] both go white at the same time.” Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ledbetter ¶ 51 (“[S]ome or all pixels in the multiple displays may be set to white . . . . for the duration of the image capture.”). Thus, the applied references teach or suggest multiple display regions of a single device and projecting illuminating light from multiple displays. See Non-Final Act. 3. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Imamura and Ledbetter in the manner proposed. “Under the correct [obviousness] analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 Appeal 2020-003092 Application 14/560,726 5 (2007). Here, we agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is well-known in the art and would be beneficial to any camera systems to use multiple light sources to illuminate an imaging subject,” as evidenced by Ledbetter. Ans. 14; see also Ledbetter ¶ 53 (“[T]he pixels of the display of the laptop also go to white at the same time as the pixels in the display 14 to assist in the illumination of the” field of view captured by the camera.), Fig. 1C. Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Ledbetter, such that both of the display regions of Imamura are used to illuminate the subject while taking a picture, “so as to provide better lighting for image capturing and reduce the shadow in the captured image.”3 Id.; see also Non-Final Act. 3, 5. Such combination of these references’ teachings is the obvious combination of familiar elements yielding predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Because Appellant does not argue the other rejected claims separately, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2–4, 11, and 16–28. 3 We note that the light projected from the display regions of Imamura is in directions “different from each other,” as recited in claim 1, and as understood in light of the Specification’s disclosure. See Figs. 6, 23; see also Spec. ¶¶ 53 (“[I]lluminating light can be delivered to the subject 105 from different regions [of the same display screen], that is, different directions.”), 89 (“When the electronic device 101A is folded in half, the illuminating light 107C and the illuminating light 107D are delivered in different directions.”). Appeal 2020-003092 Application 14/560,726 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 103 Imamura, Ledbetter 1, 2, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 3, 4, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 103 Imamura, Ledbetter, Moskovchenko 3, 4, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 Overall Outcome 1–4, 11, 16–28 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED