Ex Parte Glen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2014

11469232 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID I. J. GLEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24 and 26. Claim 25 has been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s Disclosure and Claims
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a device and method for
adjusting the brightness of at least a portion of a display image (Fig. 3; Spec.
¶ [0014]).
Claims 1, 15, 24 and 26 are independent and each recite a method or
apparatus for adjusting the brightness of a display image according to the
manner in which the content is authored.1 Because the claims contain the
same disputed limitation, we select claim 1 as representative, which reads as
follows (with emphasis added to the disputed claim language):
1. In a device comprising a graphics processor in
communication with a display, the display having adjustable
light source intensity, a method for the graphics processor to
adjust brightness of at least a portion of a display image, the
method comprising:

determining a type for content to be included in the
display image to provide an identified content type, the type

1 Appellant has grouped claim 24 with the arguments directed to
independent claims 10, 22, and 23. (Br. 17-18). However, claim 24
contains the disputed claim limitation found in independent claims 1, 15 and
26 and does not contain the disputed limitation found in independent claims
10, 22 and 23. Therefore, we group claim 24 with independent claims 1, 15
and 26.
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

3
being determined according to the manner in which the content
is authored for a specific display type;

setting the light source to an adjusted intensity based on
the identified content type; and
providing the display image to the display having the
adjusted intensity.
Claims 10, 22, and 23 are independent and each recite a method or
apparatus for adjusting the brightness of one portion of a display image
differently than another portion of the display image. Because the claims
contain the same disputed limitations, we select claim 10 to be
representative, which reads as follows (with emphasis added to the disputed
claim language):
10. In a device coupled to a display, the display comprising a
light source having adjustable light source intensity, a method
for the device to adjust brightness of at least a portion of a
display image, the method comprising:

identifying a region of the display image to be displayed
at an adjusted brightness, that portion of the display image
other than the region constituting a remaining portion of the
display image;

setting the light source to a first intensity to
accommodate the adjusted brightness of the region; and
processing the remaining portion of the display image to
accommodate the first intensity of the light source.

Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

4
Examiner’s Rejections
Obviousness Rejections Based on Kim:
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 21-24 and 26
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim (US
2006/0282850 A1) and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art shown in Figure 1
and described in paragraphs [0002]-[0005] (hereinafter, “AAPA”). Ans. 4-
6.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim, AAPA, and Tseng (US
2005/0146654 A1). Ans. 7-8.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 and 18-20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim, AAPA, and Lee (US 2005/0212825
A1). Ans. 8-9.
Obviousness Rejections Based on Fujine:
(4) The Examiner also separately rejected claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 15,
17, 21-24, and 26 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fujine (US 2006/0221260 A1) and AAPA. Ans. 10-12.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fujine, AAPA, and Tseng.
Ans. 12-14.
(6) The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 and 18-20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fujine, AAPA, and Lee. Ans. 14-15.
Appellant’s Contentions
With regard to independent claims 1, 15, 24 and 26, Appellant argues,
inter alia, that Kim and Fujine fail to disclose “the type being determined
according to the manner in which the content is authored for a specific
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

5
display type” and that the Examiner did not have proper motivation to
combine Kim or Fujine with AAPA but instead relied upon hindsight
reasoning. Br. 14-16.
Appellant also argues, with regard to claims 3, 8, 10, 12, 17 and 21-23
that Kim or Fujine combined with AAPA fail to disclose first, setting of the
light source of the display to accommodate the adjusted brightness of a
region of the display image, and second, processing the remaining portion of
the display image to accommodate the first intensity of the display's light
source. Br. 17-18.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4-7,
9, 16 and 18-20 under § 103 over Kim or Fujine, combined with AAPA and
Tseng or Lee, for the same reasons argued with respect to claims 1, 15, 24
and 26, which are rejected under § 103 over Kim or Fujine, combined with
AAPA. Br. 6-9 and 12-15.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issues are presented
for appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-24 and 26 as being
obvious because Kim and AAPA are not properly combinable?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-9, 15-21, 24 and 26 as
being obvious because Fujine and AAPA are not properly combinable to
teach or suggest the apparatus limitations at issue in independent claims 1,
15, 24 and 26, including setting the light source to an adjusted intensity
based on the manner in which the content is authored for a specific display
type?
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

6
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 3, 8, 10-14, 17 and 21-23
as being obvious because Fujine and AAPA fail to disclose the limitations at
issue in independent claims 10, 22 and 23, including: first, setting of the
light source of the display to accommodate the adjusted brightness of a
region of the display image, and second, processing the remaining portion of
the display image to accommodate the first intensity of the display's light
source?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner erred (Br. 15-19), as well
as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief
(Ans. 16-18). We agree with Appellant’s argument (Br. 15-16) that there is
no motivation to combine Kim with AAPA and that the Examiner employed
impermissible hindsight. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments (Br. 15-
16) that Fujine combined with AAPA fails to disclose the disputed claim
limitations and that there is no motivation to combine Fujine with AAPA.
With regard to issue (1), Appellant argues (Br. 15-16) that there
would have been no motivation to combine Kim with AAPA because the
Examiner used impermissible hindsight to create Appellant’s claimed
invention. The Examiner’s rationale for combining Kim with AAPA would
be to reduce blurring (see Ans. 4-9). However, neither reference discloses
why blurring would be reduced, nor does the Examiner discuss why
reducing blurring would occur. (See generally Kim, AAPA; Ans. 4-9). As
such, the Examiner has not articulated a rational underpinning for combining
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

7
Kim with AAPA. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-24
and 26 as being obvious over the combination of Kim and AAPA.
With regard to issue (2) above, Appellant argues (Br. 14-16) that, like
Kim, there would similarly have been no motivation to combine Fujine with
AAPA. The Examiner responds that the reason one of ordinary skill in the
art would combine Fujine with AAPA is to reduce blurring (see Ans. 10-15
and 17 newly citing Fujine, ¶ [0122]). Fujine discloses:
[0122] Since cartoons are painted with bright uniform colors
and are simple images, unevenness, noises, and impurities are
surfaced. Boundaries between colors tend to be blurred. Since
the colors are bright, flickers are highly visible, and from these
standpoints, when cartoon programs are displayed, it is
preferred to reduce the emission luminance of the light source
to constrain such effects.

(Fujine, ¶ [0122]) (emphases added). We agree with the Examiner’s
reasoning (see Ans. 17 (citing Fujine, ¶ [0122])) because Fujine discloses
that it is preferred to adjust the luminance of a display to reduce blurring
(Fujine, ¶ [0122]).2 We further agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 10 (citing
Fujine, ¶ [0078])) that Fujine discloses setting the light source to an adjusted
intensity according to the manner in which the content is authored for a
specific display type (Fujine, ¶ [0078]).
However, we disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Fujine as
combined with AAPA discloses all of the claimed limitations (see Ans. 10-
12), because neither Fujine nor AAPA discloses “the type being determined
according to the manner in which the content is authored for a specific

2 Notably, Appellant has not presented arguments or other persuasive
evidence to rebut Examiner’s new findings regarding Fujine (see the
Examiner’s new citation to Fujine, ¶ [0122] at page 17 of the Answer).
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

8
display type” as recited in representative claim 1 (emphasis added).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 15-21, 24 and 26 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With regard to issue (3), Appellant argues (Br. 17-18) that Fujine as
combined with AAPA fails to disclose first, setting of the light source of the
display to accommodate the adjusted brightness of a region of the display
image; and second, processing the remaining portion of the display image to
accommodate the first intensity of the display's light source. We agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 18 (citing AAPA, ¶¶ [0003] and [0005])) that AAPA
teaches the claimed limitations. ¶ [0005] of AAPA reads as follows (with
emphases added):
[0005] More recently, developers of liquid crystal display
(LCD) technology have developed techniques that allow the
displays themselves to adjust the brightness of certain regions
within the display based on knowledge about the inputs being
provided to the display. For example, such systems take
advantage of techniques such as so-called "picture in picture"
(PIP) which provide the monitor with data regarding where
video content is to be displayed. In this manner, the display can
adjust intensity of a backlight to be optimally bright for the
video display, and thereafter adjust presentation of other
regions on the screen to accommodate the adjusted intensity of
the backlight. In a similar vein, such monitors may be provided
with controls that allow the user to define a region on the
display that is thereafter controlled in a similar manner. Not
only do these solutions increase the cost and complexity of such
displays, they are relatively limited in their ability to adapt to
changes in content as they are displayed.

AAPA teaches adjusting the brightness of a first region of the display image
and then adjusting other regions of the display image based on the
adjustment of the first region (AAPA, ¶ [0005]). Therefore, we sustain the
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

9
rejection of claims 10-14, 22 and 23 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fujine and AAPA.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-24 and 26 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) (obviousness rejections based on Kim
as listed supra) because there is no motivation to combine Kim and AAPA.
(2) The Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 15-21, 24 and 26
as being obvious over Fujine and AAPA because neither Fujine nor AAPA
discloses “the type being determined according to the manner in which the
content is authored for a specific display type.”
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10-14, 22 and 23 as
being obvious over Fujine and AAPA because AAPA teaches the disputed
limitations, and Fujine’s paragraph [0122] provides the impetus to reduce
blurring.

DECISION
(1) The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-24 and 26 under §103(a) as
being obvious over the base combination of Kim and AAPA are reversed.
(2) The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-9, 15-21, 24, and 26 under
§103(a) as being obvious over the base combination of Fujine and AAPA
are reversed.
(3) The Examiner’s rejections of claims 10-14, 22, and 23 under
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the base combination of Fujine and AAPA
are affirmed.
Appeal 2011-010869
Application 11/469,232

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj