Ex Parte Kirk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2018

12388443 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/388,443 02/18/2009 David B. Kirk NVDA/P001434-US1 -CON 1 1480
102324 7590 01/12/2018
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
BODDIE, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2018 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):
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing @ artegislaw.com
rsmith @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID B. KIRK
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Final
Rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent, and recite similar subject matter
pertaining to non-transitory computer-readable medium with instruction to
perform a method (claim 8), a system for displaying an image with display
processors to perform a method (claim 15), and a method (claim 1) for
displaying an image on a backlit display device (e.g., a liquid crystal display
or LCD) using first and second brightness profiles to illuminate image pixels
in an effort to reduce power consumption of the backlit display. Spec. Tflf 2—
10 and 22; Figs. 2-A\ Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced
below with emphasis added to key disputed limitations of the claim:
1. A method for displaying a display image on a backlit
display device, the method comprising:
generating a source image comprised of a plurality of
pixels, wherein each pixel in the source image has an associated
initial brightness level;
determining a first backlight input for a first backlight
that illuminates pixels of the display device and a second
backlight input for a second backlight that illuminates pixels of
the display device based on a first brightness profile, a second
brightness profile, and the source image, wherein the
first brightness profile comprises a mapping of non-uniform
brightness of the first backlight as a function ofpixel position
and wherein the second brightness profile comprises a mapping
of non-uniform brightness of the second backlight as a function
of pixel position',
modifying a first intensity of the first backlight and a
second intensity of the second backlight based on the first
backlight input and the second backlight input; and
2
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
computing an LCD input image that is based on the first
backlight input, the second backlight input, the first brightness
profile, the second brightness profile, and the source image.
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 11—16) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3—6) that the Examiner’s
rejections of:
(i) claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fuller (US 2002/0171617 Al; published Nov. 21, 2002)
and Nagatani (US 2004/0239580 Al; published Dec. 2, 2004) (Final Act. 2—
3);
(ii) claims 2 and 9 as being unpatentable over Fuller, Nagatani, and
Cragun (US 6,229,544 Bl; issued May 8, 2001) (Final Act. 4);
(iii) claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 as being
unpatentable over Fuller, Nagatani, and Inoue (US 6,097,836; issued Aug. 1,
2000) (Final Act. 4—5); and
(iv) claims 5, 12, and 18 as being unpatentable over Fuller, Nagatani,
Inoue, and McMahon (US 2006/0145887 Al; published July 6, 2006) (Final
Act. 6) are in error, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments
in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—5).
In rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner relies on Fuller as
teaching display of an image on a backlit display device by determining a
brightness level (Final Act. 2) (citing Fuller Fig. 4; || 48—50), and finds that
“Fuller does not disclose second backlight units and the second brightness
profile comprises a mapping of non-uniform brightness of the second
backlight as a function of pixel position” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner then
relies on Nagatani as teaching “input of first and second backlight units, a
3
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
mapping of non-uniform brightness of the second backlight as a function of
pixel position” (Final Act. 3 citing Nagatani Fig. 20, items A—D; || 120-
123).
Appellant contends (see App. Br. 11—15; Reply Br. 3—5) that neither
Fuller, Nagatani, nor their combination teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation, namely “wherein the first brightness profile comprises a mapping
of non-uniform brightness of the first backlight as a function of pixel
position and wherein the second brightness profile comprises a mapping of
non-uniform brightness of the second backlight as a function of pixel
position,” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
In the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3), the Examiner responds to
Appellant’s arguments by stating that Fuller discloses, in Figure 4 and
paragraphs 48—50, “respective cell[s] with non-uniform brightness as a
function of pixel position (initial video signal, reference cells, adjusted
backlight signal, and technical characteristics of the backlight),” and that this
“teaches that reference cells have a greater value, which is non-uniform
brightness compared to non-reference cells and technical characteristics are
correspondent to a brightness profile in relation to reference cells” (Ans. 3).
The Examiner determines in the Advisory Action that “Figure 20 and
related paragraphs [0120] — [0123] of Nagatani disclose[] [sic] a second
backlight having a non-uniform brightness profile as depicted by regions A —
D in Figure 20” (Advisory Act. 2). The Examiner goes on to find in the
Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3—5) that Nagatani shows and teaches areas
A—D as being display areas that “have different pixel positions] in X-Y
directions” (Ans. 5).
4
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
Here, the Examiner speculates and invites the Board to speculate. The
question of obviousness is “based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently.” In re
Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). “The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Although Fuller discloses, in Figure 4 and paragraphs 48—50, signals
for adjusting and controlling a backlight, the Examiner has not shown, and
we refuse to speculate as to, how/why controlling/adjusting a single
backlight signal teaches or suggests first and second backlights to illuminate
pixels of a display device using first and second brightness profiles
comprising “a mapping of non-uniform brightness” of the backlights as
claimed.
Further, although Nagatani discloses a “scan backlight system” flflf 4—
6, 22—25), Nagatani does not teach or suggest first and second backlights to
illuminate pixels of a display device using first and second brightness
profiles as claimed. And, while Nagatani describes light-emitting areas A, B
and light-emitting areas C, D shown in Figure 20 as being “almost identical
to each other,” and their brightness “can be made almost uniform by
decreasing the brightness difference between the light-emitting areas A, B
and the light-emitting areas C, D” (1123), we find no disclosure in Nagatani
to support the Examiner’s positions that (i) Nagatani teaches “input of first
and second backlight units, a mapping of non-uniform brightness of the
second backlight as a function of pixel position” (see Final Act. 3); and/or
5
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
(ii) even if areas A—D have different pixel positions in X and Y directions as
found (see Ans. 5), that having different pixel positions teaches or suggests a
non-uniform brightness profile that is a function of pixel position as claimed.
We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967). As such, we find that the Examiner improperly relies upon the
combination of Fuller and Nagatani to teach or suggest the disputed claim
limitation.
In this light, we concur with Appellant’s assertions (see App. Br. 11—
15; Reply Br. 3—5) that neither Fuller, Nagatani, nor their combination
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, namely “wherein the
first brightness profile comprises a mapping of non-uniform brightness of
the first backlight as a function of pixel position and wherein the
second brightness profile comprises a mapping of non-uniform brightness of
the second backlight as a function of pixel position,” as recited in
independent claim 1, as well as the commensurate limitations recited in
remaining independent claims 8 and 15.
Therefore, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 over
Fuller and Nagatani. And, as a result, we similarly agree with Appellant’s
contentions (see App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 5—6) that remaining dependent
claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—20 (rejected over Fuller and Nagatani in
combination with various other references) should fall for the same reasons
6
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
as the respective independent claims 1,8, and 15 from which these claims
ultimately depend.1
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has not properly
established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for claims 1, 8,
and 15, resulting in a failure to establish prima facie obviousness. As a
result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 8,
and 15 over the base combination of Fuller and Nagatani, as well as claims
2—7, 9-14, and 16—21 depending respectively and ultimately therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1,8, and 15, as
well as claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—21 depending respectively therefrom, over
the base combination of Fuller and Nagatani.
1 Appellant argues each of the dependent claims are patentable for the same
reasons as provided for claims 1, 8, and 15 from which these claims
respectively depend (App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 5—6). When a dependent
claim and the independent claim it incorporates are not separately argued,
precedent guides that absent some effort at distinction, the claims rise or fall
together. See Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
1984) (en banc). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent
claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—21 for the same reasons as provided for claims 1,
8, and 15 from which these claims respectively depend. Cf. In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Dependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious . . . .”); see also
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1569, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (dependent
claims, not argued separately, fall with the independent claims, even though
the dependent claims were rejected based on additional (or different)
references.).
7
Appeal 2016-007134
Application 12/388,443
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—21.
REVERSED
8