Ex Parte Barnhoefer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

12911513 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/911,513 10/25/2010
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
09/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulrich T. Barnhoefer
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.
P9248US1 APPL:0206
(FLE)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1336
EXAMINER
KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH T. BARNHOEFER and YONGMAN LEE
Appeal2014-009438
Application 12/911,513
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-13, 15-17,
19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to brightness control for an organic light
emitting diode (OLED) display. Specification [0001].
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
Appeal2014-009438
Application 12/911,513
receiving image data into a data driver of an organic light emitting
diode display; transforming the image data into a logarithmic domain
to obtain log-encoded image data using the data driver;
performing a subtraction operation comprising subtracting a
logarithmic dimming control value from the log-encoded image data to
obtain log-encoded dimmed image data using the data driver, wherein the
log-encoded dimmed image data represents a darker version of the received
image data; and
driving a pixel of the organic light emitting diode display based at
least in part on the log-encoded dimmed image data using the data driver.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee (US Patent Application Publication Number
2008/0088548 Al; published April 17, 2008) and Ben-Chorin (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2005/0031199 Al; published February l 0,
2005). Final Rejection 2-5.
Claims 5, 7, 11-14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee, Ben-Chorin and Kasai (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2004/0222986 Al; published November 11, 2004).
Final Rejection 5-10.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Ben-Chorin and Rogers (US Patent Number
7,961,195 Bl; issued June 14, 2011). Final Rejection 10-11.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Ben-Chorin and Kasai. Final Rejection 11-12.
2
Appeal2014-009438
Application 12/911,513
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Ben-Chorin, Kasai and Akai (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2005/0007393 Al; published January 13, 2005). Final
Rejection 12-13.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 11, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
September 5, 2014), the Answer (mailed July 8, 2014) and the Final
Rejection (mailed August 29, 2013) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
Appellants argue the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1 and 6 is erroneous because "there is no division operation described
in the dimming operation of Lee that can be replaced with the log
subtraction described in Ben-Chorin." Appeal Brief 8.
The Examiner finds Lee is deficient because "Lee dims display
brightness though not expressly logarithmic encoding and subtraction."
Final Rejection 3. The Examiner finds, "Ben-Charin discloses brightness
control with logarithmic encoding and subtraction (brightness or other
values 'may be converted to logarithmic equivalents' allowing replacement
of 'costly division/multiplication operations with less-costly
subtraction/addition.' Reverse-logarithmic functions allow 'translating the
results back to the desired non-logarithmic form' [0081] fig 7)." Final
Rejection 3. Appellants argue "merely teaching the ability dim data through
pulse-width modulation and the ability to replace division operation with
subtraction cannot not teach or suggest subtracting a logarithmic dimming
3
Appeal2014-009438
Application 12/911,513
control value from the log-encoded image data to obtain log-encoded
dimmed image data, as generally recited by independent claims 1 and 6."
Appeal Brief 10.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive1. We reverse the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, as well as,
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-
17, 19 and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-13, 15-17, 19 and
20 are reversed.
REVERSED
1 In paragraph 5 of Appellants' Specification, Appellants admit that
decreasing power to an OLED by applying a nonlinear transfer function to
image data and a dimming value divided from the image data, then
converting the dimmed image data to an analog OLED signal, was known in
the prior art. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should
consider whether replacing the division operation of the values of
Appellants' admitted prior art with a subtraction operation of logarithmic
equivalents of those values as taught by Ben-Chorin does anything more
than yield the predictable result of replacing the relatively costly division
operation with a less costly subtraction operation as taught by paragraph 81
of Ben-Chorin.
4