Ex Parte Amundson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201815201780 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/201,780 07/05/2016 26245 7590 09/04/2018 E INK CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 1000 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821-4165 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Karl R. Amundson 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. H-378DIV3 5341 EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): IP@eink.com bbean@eink.com abaronian@eink.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARL RAYMOND AMUNDSON, ROBERT W. ZEHNER, ARAN. KNAIAN, and BENJAMIN ZION Appeal2018-003332 1 Application 15/201,780 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Appellants identify E Ink Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal2018-003332 Application 15/201,780 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "relates to methods for driving electro-optic displays. The methods of the present invention are especially, though not exclusively, intended for use in driving bistable electrophoretic displays." Spec. ,r 8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method for driving an electro-optic display having a plurality of pixels, the pixels being driven with a pulse width modulated waveform capable of applying a plurality of differing impulses to each pixel, the method comprising: (a) storing data indicating whether application of a given impulse to a pixel will produce a gray level higher or lower than a desired gray level; (b) detecting when two adjacent pixels are both required to be in the same gray level; and ( c) adjusting the impulses applied to the two pixels so that one pixel is below the desired gray level, while the other pixel is above the desired gray level. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Katase (US 2002/0021483 Al; Feb. 21, 2002) and Kawahara (US 6,268,890 Bl; July 31, 2001). Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Katase, Kawahara, and Applicant's Admission to Prior Art ("AAPA") ,r,r 8-35. Final Act. 7-9. 2 Appeal2018-003332 Application 15/201,780 ANALYSIS THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON KATASE AND KAWAHARA Claims 1 and 2 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over Katase and Kawahara. Appellants argue that Katase does not teach or suggest correlating impulses applied to adjacent pixels, as required by the claims. App. Br. 11. The Examiner, however, points out that the rejection relies on Kawahara, not Katase, as teaching this limitation. Ans. 2-3. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981);InreMerck& Co., 800F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, we find this argument unpersuasive. Appellants also contend that a skilled artisan would not combine Kawahara's driving method to Katase. App. Br. 11-12. Namely, according to Appellants, Kawahara is essentially directed to addressing a particular problem "with moving image false edges and half tone disturbances in time- multiplexed displays" that is not encountered with electrophoretic displays. App. Br. 11 (citing Kawahara, cols. 1-3, Figs. 18-20). Appellants further assert that Kawahara's issue is specific to "displays which are incapable of displaying gray levels but which can be switched so rapidly as to simulate gray levels" (Kawahara, col. 1, 11. 7-25) and, as such, is not applicable to Katase's display that is "capable of displaying gray levels and, while they may be capable of displaying moving images, they cannot be switched rapidly enough to use the [method] of Kawahara." Reply Br. 1-2; App. Br. 11-12. 3 Appeal2018-003332 Application 15/201,780 We find this argument unpersuasive. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to "one of ordinary skill" in the art at the time the invention was made to use the teachings of Kawahara to adjust the impulses applied to adjacent pixels of Katase. The motivation to do so would have been in order to reduce occurrences of moving image false-edges such that a sharp edge can be displayed that does not appear blurred (See Kawahara, column 3, lines 8-12.). Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines that Kawahara generally teaches addressing gray scale with moving images and particularly with picture patterns with two pairs of adjacent pixels having similar gray level values. See Kawahara, col. 1, 11. 7-12, 26-36, col. 3, 11. 8-12. While Kawahara discusses,for example, a particular issue that may occur with plasma displays, this does not detract from Kawahara's general teaching. The Examiner also explains In the rejection, the actual driving method to create the gray scales of Kawahara is not being used to replace or change the method of driving in Katase, but rather just the teaching of adjusting the levels of pixels when they are to be the same gray level such that one pixel is higher and one pixel is lower than the desired gray level, and this teaching of the gray levels is applied to the gray scale driving of Katase so as to enjoy the same benefits. Katase in paragraph [0086] says "The display is capable of showing both static and animated images . . . " Thus, if animated, i.e. moving, images are shown then the problem of moving-false-edges would indeed arise in the electrophoretic display of Katase. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would readily have realized how and why to use the gray scale teachings of Kawahara for adjacent pixels of the same value in an electrophoretic display as explained in the rejection. Ans. 3--4. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination. 4 Appeal2018-003332 Application 15/201,780 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over Katase and Kawahara. THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON KATASE, KAWAHARA, ANDAAPA Claims 3-5 Appellants present no separate argument for patentability of claims 3- 5. As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-5. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±)(2016). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation