Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2019

14500458 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/500,458 09/29/2014
65015 7590 06/27/2019
Treyz Law Group
15279 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 250
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cheng Chen
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.
P23684US1 4987
EXAMINER
LAU,JOHNY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2019 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@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG CHEN, DENIZ TEOMAN, JIA YING WU,
JOHN Z. ZHONG, and JUN JIANG 1
Appeal2018-008748
Application 14/500,458
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20,
all the pending claims in the present application. App. Br. 2. Claims 2, 5-8,
11, 15, 17, and 18 have been canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-008748
Application 14/500,458
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter generally relates to adjusting
spectral characteristics of blue light emitted from a display based on, for
example, the time of day. See Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with the limitation at issue
italicized:
1. A method for displaying images on an array of display
pixels in a display having a white point, wherein the array of
display pixels includes blue display pixels, the method
compnsmg:
with display control circuitry, gathering time of day
information from a time source; and
adjusting spectral characteristics of display light emitted
from the display based on the time of day information while
maintaining the white point of the display on a black body
curve, wherein adjusting the spectral characteristics of the
display light comprises adjusting an overall intensity of blue
light emitted from the display based on the time of day
information, and wherein adjusting the overall intensity of blue
light emitted from the display comprises adjusting maximum
power levels delivered to the blue display pixels without shifting
a peak wavelength of the blue light.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over De Boer et al. (US 2009/0281604
Al, publ. Nov. 12, 2009) and Wakabayashi et al. (US 2007/0268234 Al,
publ. Nov. 22, 2007). Final Act. 4.
2
Appeal2018-008748
Application 14/500,458
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
De Boer, Wakabayashi, and Chemel et al. (US 2006/0104058 Al, publ. May
18, 2006). Id. at 10.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the cited references fail to teach or suggest claim
1 's "adjusting an overall intensity of blue light emitted from [a] display ...
compris[ing] adjusting maximum power levels delivered to the blue display
pixels without shifting a peak wavelength of the blue light." App. Br. 6-7.
Specifically, Appellants contend, "De Boer teaches away from adjusting the
overall intensity of blue light." App. Br. 6. Appellants rely on paragraphs 3,
4, 7, 8, and 14 of De Boer, which Appellants assert "describe[] that blue
light from the different LEDs ... has 'identical' intensity so that 'the
observer does not see any noticeable differences between the different
lights." Id. at 6-7. Appellants also assert "De Boer avoids changing overall
intensity of blue light by instead shifting the wavelength of blue light using
different mixtures of blue LEDs ... , which is the opposite of what is recited
in claim 1." Id. at 7.
The Examiner tersely responds that De Boer "teaches adjusting the
intensity of blue light by driver (3)." Ans. 5 ( citing De Boer Figs. 2, 5,
Abstract, ,r,r 8, 45, 46, 52). On Reply, Appellants argue the Answer "does
3
Appeal2018-008748
Application 14/500,458
not address Applicant's argument that De Boer teaches away from adjusting
the overall intensity of blue light." Reply Br. 3.
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, we agree with Appellants that De Boer teaches away
from adjusting the overall intensity of blue light by requiring that blue light
maintain substantially the same intensity. As noted above, the claim
requires "adjusting the overall intensity of blue light emitted from the display
comprises adjusting maximum power levels delivered to the blue display
pixels without shifting a peak wavelength of the blue light." In contrast, De
Boer discloses, for example, "[i]t is a drawback of [a prior art] light emitting
device that the color and/or intensity of the light varies when the melatonin
suppression effect is changed"; "[i]t is an object of the invention to provide a
device for varying light to obtain a different effect on the melatonin
suppression but substantially the same color and intensity"; and "[i]t is
especially important that the color and intensity of the blue light do not
change substantially." De Boer ,r,r 3, 4, 8 ( emphasis added).
Instead of reducing overall intensity of blue light, De Boer discloses
"switch[ing] over between generating the blue light by a single source with a
wavelength of 470 nm and generating the blue light by two sources with a
wavelength of 440 nm and 490 nm." Id. ,r 43. That is, De Boer's disclosure
of adjusting the overall intensity of blue light by shifting the peak
wavelength of the blue light while maintaining the intensity of the light
constant vitiates the explicit claim limitation emphasized above. Thus, one
4
Appeal2018-008748
Application 14/500,458
of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified De Boer with
Wakabayashi's intensity-reduction teachings to produce the claimed
"adjusting an overall intensity of blue light emitted from [a] display ...
compris[ing] adjusting maximum power levels delivered to the blue display
pixels without shifting a peak wavelength of the blue light," as proposed by
the Examiner to somehow amount to the disputed limitation at issue.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and corresponding dependent claims 3, 4, and 9. Independent claims 10 and
16 recite similar language to claim 1. Accordingly, we also do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 16 and corresponding dependent
claims 12-14, 19, and 20.
We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the
pending claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10,
12-14, 16, 19, and 20.
REVERSED
5