Ex Parte IshiiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613037078 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/037,078 02/28/2011 Takatoshi Ishii 26181 7590 06/02/2016 FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (SV) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 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. 18529-0082001 6184 EXAMINER TAYLOR JR, DUANE N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte T AKA TOSHI ISHIL Appeal2014-007334 Application 13/037,078 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a "method for improving the brightness of projected images from an LED projector employing a plurality, usually three, LEDs of different colors." Appeal Brief 2. Appeal2014-007334 Application 13/037,078 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for improving brightness of projected images from an LED projector employing a plurality of LEDs of different colors, comprising: determining, from a histogram of a frame of an image to be projected, an effective maximum saturation; creating a plurality of main channels of differing colors, each main channel representing the drive current of a main channel color, and a plurality of associated subchannels, each subchannel overlapping the main channel for the time period of the main channel, and each subchannel representing a drive current of a color different from the main channel color, there being one main channel and at least one subchannel for each color LED; determining the amplitude of the drive current of the main channel and of a sub channel for each color based upon an effective maximum saturation of the frame of the image; and using both the main channel for a color and an associated subchannel for the color to drive an LED of the color to generate the image. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu (US Patent Number 7 ,285,923 B2; issued October 23, 2007), Jaspers (US Patent Number 6,741,736 Bl; issued May 25, 2004), Su (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0086016 Al; published April 2, 2009) and Kim (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0061716 Al; published March 13, 2008). Final Rejection 3-12. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu and Jaspers. Final Rejection 12-16. 2 Appeal2014-007334 Application 13/037,078 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 22, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed June 17, 2014), the Answer (mailed May 22, 2014) and the Final Rejection (mailed February 13, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief, except where noted. Claims 1--8 Appellant contends that claim 1 requires each subchannel represents a drive current of a color different from the main channel color where there is one main channel and at least one subchannel for each color LED. Appeal Brief 4. Appellant contends that Yu's main drive current G 1 and drive current G2 are the same color (green) and therefore the Examiner erred in finding that Yu taught the claimed subchannel. Appeal Brief 4, 5 (citing Final Rejection 6). We agree with Appellant that Yu does not disclose a main channel and a subchannel, as the Examiner proposed. However, in the same rejection, the Examiner indicated that the Yu and Jaspers combination is deficient in that regard and found that Su actually teaches the main channel/subchannel limitation. See Final Rejection 7. Appellant argues that Su and Kim were cited to merely illustrate deriving subchannels using a prism and combining the subchannels to make white light. Appeal Brief 6. 3 Appeal2014-007334 Application 13/037,078 Appellant concludes that "neither of these two references teaches or fairly suggests the steps of claim 1 above that are absent from the primary references Yu and Jaspers." Appeal Brief 6. We disagree with Appellant's characterization of the Examiner's findings regarding Su. The Examiner found that "Su teaches a plurality of associated subchannels, each represent a color different from the main channel color (Su, fig. 4a-e, described in f [0036)- f [0039]; note, each channel represents other color's subchannel when combining multiple colors)." Final Rejection 7. The Examiner concluded that "it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was [sic] to modify the controller of Yu in view of Jaspers and in further view of Su to include the functionality of overlapping the main channel for the time period of the main channel." Final Rejection 8. Appellant's arguments fail to address the Examiner's findings associated with Su. Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to present evidence and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant did not particularly point out errors in the Examiner's reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. Appellant also argues that "Jaspers lacks any teaching or suggestion of using his maximum saturation RGBsat to determine the amplitude of the drive current for the main channel and a subchannel, as claimed." Appeal Brief 6. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because Appellant is attacking the references individually rather than the combination of 4 Appeal2014-007334 Application 13/037,078 references. 1 Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-8 not separately argued, is sustained. Claims 9 and 10 Appellant argues that the combination of Yu and Jaspers fails to teach "the step of claim 9 that groups pixel saturation value 'according to the number of pixels having saturation values within a range of saturation values determine for the group.'" Appeal Brief 6. Appellant argues the Examiner's finding that Jaspers discloses grouping the pixels according to saturation values is erroneous because Jaspers actually discloses grouping via input luminance values. Appeal Brief 6 (citing Jaspers column 1, line 66-column 2, line 6). We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because Jaspers discloses "the luminance level of the rich colored image parts is restored towards the linear transfer level as function of the amount of saturation." Answer 14--15 (citing Jaspers column 2, lines 18-20). Jaspers discloses that luminance and saturation values are not mutually exclusive. Appellant also argues that Jaspers fails to disclose the claimed saturation values boosted by an empirically determined multiple obtained through analysis because Jaspers employs a formula. Appeal Brief 7. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of Examiner error because empirically determining the boosting value is not patentably distinguishable from employing a formula. 2 See Specification 10. Therefore we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10. 1 In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)). 2 "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). 5 Appeal2014-007334 Application 13/037,078 DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claim 1-10 are affirmed. 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(±). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation