Ex Parte Kuroki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 17, 2012

10572044 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 17, 2012)

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.
10/572,044 03/15/2006 Yoshihiko Kuroki SON-3381 5309
23353 7590 04/17/2012
RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
LION BUILDING
1233 20TH STREET N.W., SUITE 501
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
STEINBERG, JEFFREY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YOSHIHIKO KUROKI
____________
Appeal 2010-008896
1

Application 10/572,044
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
An oral hearing was held for this appeal on April 10, 2012.
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11. Claims 6 and 10
have been cancelled. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented an apparatus, method, and computer program
product that causes a hold-type display apparatus to display an image that
makes it difficult to perceive motion blurriness and jerkiness at a lower
frame rate. According to Appellant, the claimed invention includes a display
controller that controls a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) so as to time-
sequentially increase or decrease the brightness of the screen in each period
of a frame. See Abstract.
Illustrative Claims
1. A display apparatus, comprising:
displaying means for holding display of individual pixels
of a screen in each period of a frame;
display controlling means for controlling the display of
the displaying means so as to time-sequentially increase
brightness of the screen or time-sequentially reduce the
brightness of the screen in each period of the frame;
motion-amount detecting means for detecting an amount
of motion of an image displayed;
storing means for storing a light-emission intensity that
serves as a reference;
determining means for determining, based on the stored
light-emission intensity and the detected amount of motion, a
characteristic value defining a characteristic for time-
sequentially increasing the brightness of the screen or
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

3
time-sequentially reducing the brightness of the screen, with a
constant light-emission intensity for the frame; and
wherein the display controlling means controls the
display of the displaying means so as to time-sequentially
increase the brightness of the screen or time-sequentially reduce
the brightness of the screen in each period of the frame, based
on the characteristic value.

7. A display apparatus, comprising:
displaying means for holding display of individual pixels
of a screen in each period of a frame; and
display controlling means for controlling the display of
the displaying means so as to time-sequentially increase
brightness of the screen or time-sequentially reduce the
brightness of the screen in each period of the frame,
wherein, based on the spectral luminous efficiency of
human eyes, by time-sequentially increasing or
time-sequentially reducing brightness of each of the three
primary colors in each period of the frame, the display
controlling means controls the display so as to time-
sequentially increase the brightness of the screen or time-
sequentially reduce the brightness of the screen.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Nitta US 7,113,163 B2 Sept. 26, 2006
(filed June 26, 2001)
Nagai EP 1202244 A1 May 2, 2002

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Nitta. Ans. 3-8.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nitta and Nagai. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

4
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds Nitta’s data storing unit and data
comparing unit describe the “storing means” and “determining means”
recited in independent claim 1, respectively. Ans. 3. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Nitta’s disclosure of changing the time ratio of the 1
st

lighting-up luminance and 2
nd
lighting-up luminance in correspondence with
the information amount about the movement of the image-signal describes
“determining, based on the stored light-emission intensity and the detected
amount of motion, a characteristic value […],” as claimed. Ans. 9.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Nitta’s disclosure of the pulse controlling
unit adding the motion-frame picture judgment signal from the data
comparing unit, in conjunction with setting the starting time ps of the 1
st

time period and the time pw—which affects brightness—of the 1
st
time
period, describes the “display controlling means,” as claimed. Ans. 4.
2. The Examiner finds that Nitta discloses a pulse controlling unit
that adds the motion-frame picture judgment signal from the data comparing
unit, and sets the starting time ps of the 1
st
time period and the time pw—
which affects brightness—of the 1
st
time period. Ans. 4 and 10. In
particular, the Examiner finds that this textual portion of Nitta describes
“wherein, based on the spectral luminous efficiency of human eyes, by time-
sequentially increasing or time sequentially reducing brightness of each of
the three primary colors in each period of the frame, the display controlling
means controls the display so as to time- sequentially increase the brightness
of the screen or time-sequentially reduce the brightness of the screen,” as
recited in independent claim 7. Id.
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

5
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that Nitta discloses both a data storing unit
for storing display data by the amount of one frame and reading the
information in the next frame, and a data comparing unit for comparing, on
the basis of the corresponding pixels, the present frame display data with the
previous frame display data read from the data storing unit. App. Br. 15.
However, Appellant alleges that Nitta is completely silent with respect to
“determining, based on the stored light-emission intensity and the detected
amount of motion, a characteristic for time sequentially increasing the
brightness of the screen or time-sequentially reducing the brightness of the
screen, with a constant light-emission intensity for the frame,” as required by
independent claim 1. Id (emphasis in original). At best, Appellant alleges
that Nitta’s comparison of the frame data could result in a determination that
motion-frame pictures are present. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6. However,
Appellant maintains that Nitta fails to disclose “determining a characteristic
value based on the stored light-emission intensity and the detected amount
of motion with a constant light-emission intensity for the frame.” App. Br.
16; Reply Br. 6 (emphasis in originals).
Moreover, Appellant contends that Nitta discloses a pulse controlling
unit for fetching an output from the data comparing unit on the basis of the
amount of one display region so as to generate a starting time ps of the 1
st

time-period of the light-source lighting-up signal (blinking light) BL and a
time pw of the 1
st
time-period. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6-7. However,
Appellant argues that Nitta fails to disclose “how to control the display of
the displaying means so as to time-sequentially increase the brightness of the
screen or time-sequentially reduce the brightness of the screen in each period
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

6
of the frame, based on the characteristic value,” as required by independent
claim 1. Id (emphasis in original).
2. Appellant contends that Nitta does not disclose controlling the
display so as to time-sequentially increase or time-sequentially reduce
brightness for each of the three primary colors in each period of a frame, as
required by independent claim 7. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 8. Moreover,
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s Final Rejection does not even address
“time-sequentially increasing or time-sequentially reducing the brightness of
each of the three primary colors in each period of the frame based on the
spectral luminous efficiency of human eyes,” as claimed. Id (emphasis in
originals).

II. ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Nitta describes the
following claim limitations recited in independent claim 1:
(a) “storing means for storing a light-emission intensity that serves
as a reference;”
(b) “determining means for determining, based on the stored light-
emission intensity and the detected amount of motion, a characteristic value
defining a characteristic for time-sequentially increasing the brightness of
the screen or time-sequentially reducing the brightness of the screen, with a
constant light-emission intensity for the frame;” and
(c) “wherein the display controlling means controls the display of
the displaying means so as to time-sequentially increase the brightness of the
screen or time-sequentially reduce the brightness of the screen in each period
of the frame, based on the characteristic value.”
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

7
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Nitta describes “wherein,
based on the spectral luminous efficiency of human eyes, by time-
sequentially increasing or time-sequentially reducing brightness of each of
the three primary colors in each period of the frame, the display controlling
means controls the display so as to time-sequentially increase the brightness
of the screen or time-sequentially reduce the brightness of the screen,” as
recited in independent claim 7.

III. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection—Nitta
Claim 1
We do not find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, which recites, inter alia:
[1)] storing means for storing a light-emission intensity that
serves as a reference; [2)] determining means for determining,
based on the stored light-emission intensity and the detected
amount of motion, a characteristic value defining a
characteristic for time-sequentially increasing the brightness of
the screen or time-sequentially reducing the brightness of the
screen, with a constant light-emission intensity for the frame;
and [3)] wherein the display controlling means controls the
display of the displaying means so as to time-sequentially
increase the brightness of the screen or time-sequentially reduce
the brightness of the screen in each period of the frame, based
on the characteristic value.

We begin our analysis by noting that neither Appellant nor the
Examiner indicates whether the “storing means,” “determining means,” and
“display controlling means” found in independent claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph. Nonetheless, we find that such language does in fact
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

8
invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Consequently, we must construe
the disputed limitations to cover the corresponding structure described in
Appellant’s Specification and its equivalents. See In re Donaldson Co., Inc.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Accordingly, Nitta need not
disclose the exact structures disclosed in Appellant’s Specification to
anticipate independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Nitta
as long as Nitta discloses equivalent structures.
We respect to the “storing means” recited in independent claim 1, we
will use Appellant’s Summary of Claimed Subject Matter as a guide. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). Appellant’s Specification discloses that:
the waveform-characteristic determining unit 75 generates
waveform characteristic data (identifying waveform data)
describing characteristics of waveform data so that the product
value of the brightness of the [light emitting diode] LED
backlight in the period of the frame is equal to a reference light-
emission intensity stored in the reference light-emission-
intensity storage unit 81.

Spec. ¶ [0128]; see also figure 11.
We find that Appellant’s Specification discloses a storage unit that
stores a light-emission intensity that serves as a reference. Similarly, Nitta
discloses a data storage unit for storing display data. Col. 22, 45-48; see
also figure 18. Consequently, since Nitta’s data storage unit stores display
data, such as a first or second lighting-up luminance or time-period (col. 22,
ll. 3-8), we find that Nitta’s data storage unit is tantamount to an equivalent
structure that performs the same function of storing as Appellant’s storage
unit. Thus, we find that Nitta describes the “storing means” recited in
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

9
With respect to the claimed “determining means,” we will also use
Appellant’s Summary of Claimed Subject Matter as a guide. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(ii). Appellant’s Specification discloses that:
[W]hen the amount of motion indicated by the motion-
amount data supplied by the motion-amount detector 72 is
large, the waveform characteristic determining unit 75
generates waveform characteristic data describing
characteristics of waveform data for causing the LED backlight
13 to emit light so that the maximum value of the brightness is
increased, the light-emission period is reduced, and the value of
the product of brightness and time in a frame period becomes
equal to the reference light-emission intensity stored in the
reference light-emission-intensity storage unit 81.
When the amount of motion indicated by the motion-
amount data supplied from the motion-amount detector 72 is
small, the waveform-characteristic determining unit 75
generates waveform characteristic data describing
characteristics of waveform data for causing the LED backlight
13 to emit light so that the maximum value of the brightness is
reduced, the light-emission period is extended, and the value of
the product brightness and time in a frame period becomes
equal to the reference light-emission intensity stored in the
reference light-emission-intensity storage unit 81.

Spec. ¶¶ [0131-0132]; see also figure 11.
We find that Appellant’s Specification discloses a waveform
characteristic determining unit that determines a value, based on the stored
light-emission intensity and a detected amount of motion, which defines a
characteristic for time-sequentially increasing or decreasing the brightness of
a screen. Similarly, Nitta discloses a data comparing unit that compares the
present frame display data with previous frame display data read from the
data storing unit. Col. 22, 48-51; see also figure 18. Moreover, Nitta
discloses increasing or decreasing the lighting-up period or brightness of a
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

10
light-source (col. 22, ll. 11-18; see also figures 11A-C) by determining an
effective value (col. 22, ll. 18-19) based on stored display data (i.e., a first or
second lighting-up luminance or time-period) and the movement of an image
signal (col. 22, ll. 3-8).
Consequently, since Nitta’s data comparing unit helps determine an
effective value, based on the stored display data and movement of an image
signal, which defines characteristics for increasing or decreasing the
lighting-up period or brightness of a screen, we find that Nitta’s data
comparing unit is tantamount to an equivalent structure that performs the
same function of determining as Appellant’s waveform characteristic
determining unit. Thus, we find that Nitta describes the “determining
means” recited in independent claim 1.
With respect to the claimed “display controlling means,” Appellant’s
Specification discloses:
[a] display controller 51 [that] controls the display of an LCD
12, which is one example of a display device, to display an
image on the LCD 12 based on input image signals. The
display controller 51 also controls the light emission of an LED
backlight 13, which is one example of a light source for
supplying light to the display device.

Spec. ¶ [0119]; see also figure 11. Further, Appellant’s Specification states
that “[t]he display controller 51 includes [. . .] [the] waveform-characteristic
determining unit 75 [. . .].” Spec. ¶ [0120]; see also figure 11.
We find that Appellant’s Specification discloses a display controller
that both incorporates the waveform characteristic determining unit and
controls the display of the LCD. Similarly, Nitta discloses a switching
control circuit that incorporates the data comparing unit (col. 22, ll. 41-451),
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

11
and controls the first or second lighting-up luminance or time-periods (col.
21, l. 65-col. 22, l. 9; see also figures 17 and 18). Consequently, since
Nitta’s switching control circuit incorporates the data comparing unit—
which in turn helps determine an effective value—and controls the display
region of a LCD (col. 21, ll. 49-51) so as to increase or decrease the lighting-
up period or brightness of the screen (col. 22, ll. 11-18), we find that Nitta’s
switching control circuit is tantamount to an equivalent structure that
performs the same function of controlling a display as Appellant’s display
controller. Thus, we find that Nitta describes the “display controlling
means” recited in independent claim 1. It follows that the Examiner has not
erred in finding that Nitta anticipates independent claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellant contends that Nitta’s pulse controlling unit and pulse
generating unit do not describe the “synchronization-signal generating
means” and “sequence-signal generating means” recited in dependent claim
2. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7. Moreover, Appellant argues that Nitta’s
switching control circuit does not describe the “brightness controlling
means,” as claimed. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 8. We do not agree with
Appellant.
With respect to each means-plus-function limitation recited in
dependent claim 2, the Examiner satisfies the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation. Ans. 4 and 9. That is, the Examiner finds that
Nitta’s pulse control unit, pulse generating unit, and switching controlling
circuit (col. 22, ll. 10-20 and 61-64; col. 23, ll. 6-19) describe the
“synchronization-signal generating means,” “sequence-signal generating
means,” and “brightness controlling means,” respectively. See id. In
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

12
response, Appellant makes two blanket statements. First, Appellant
generally alleges that Nitta’s pulse control unit and pulse generating unit are
not the same as the “synchronization-signal generating means” and
“sequence-signal generating means.” See App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 7-8.
Second, Appellant generally alleges that the disclosure pertaining to Nitta’s
switching control unit does not mention the “brightness controlling means.”
Id.
Since Appellant does not make a bona fide effort to explain why the
Examiner’s explicit fact finding was in error, we find that the weight of the
evidence favors the Examiner’s position. Appellant does not explain with
sufficient specificity why the textual portions of Nitta relied upon by the
Examiner in the Final Rejection fail to describe a structure that is equivalent
to the structure invoked by the means-plus-function limitations recited in
dependent claim 2. Put another way, Appellant does not show reversible
error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of the means-plus-function
limitations recited in dependent claim 2. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It follows that the Examiner has not erred in
finding that Nitta anticipates dependent claim 2.
Claims 3 and 5
Appellant does not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claims 3 and 5. See App. Br. 12-16.
Therefore, since Appellant groups dependent claims 3 and 5 with
independent claim 1 (App. Br. 12), these claims fall with independent claim
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

13
Claim 7
We do not find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 7, which recites, inter alia, “wherein, based on the
spectral luminous efficiency of human eyes, by time-sequentially increasing
or time-sequentially reducing brightness of each of the three primary colors
in each period of the frame, the display controlling means controls the
display so as to time-sequentially increase the brightness of the screen or
time-sequentially reduce the brightness of the screen.”
In light of our analysis with respect to the “display controlling
means,” recited in independent claim 1, we find that Nitta’s switching
control circuit is tantamount to an equivalent structure that performs the
same function of controlling a display as Appellant’s display controller.
While Nitta does not explicitly disclose that the switching control circuit
increases or decreases the three primary colors (i.e., red, green, and blue) in
each period of a frame displayed on a screen, it is nonetheless implicit given
that Nitta discloses that the switching control circuit increases or decreases
the lighting-up period or brightness of a screen (col. 22, ll. 11-18) based on
stored display data and the movement of an image signal (col. 22, ll. 3-8).
Moreover, achieving this functionality through the switching control circuit
is likewise implicit to Nitta’s disclosure and, therefore, does not negate
anticipation. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A
reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a
skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own
knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”)
(internal citations, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). Consequently,
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

14
we find that Nitta describes the disputed claim limitation. It follows that the
Examiner has not erred in finding that Nitta anticipates independent claim 7.
Claims 8, 9, and 11
Appellant offers the same argument set forth in response to the
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 to rebut the anticipation
rejections of independent claims 8, 9, and 11. See App. Br. 20-23. We have
already addressed these arguments in our discussion of independent claims 1
and 7, and we found them unpersuasive. It follows that the Examiner has
not erred in finding that Nitta anticipates independent claims 8, 9, and 11.
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection—Combination of Nitta and Nagai
Claim 4
Appellant contends that Nagai does not remedy the deficiencies of
Nitta. App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 9-10. As discussed supra, we find no such
deficiencies in Nitta for Nagai to remedy. It follows that the Examiner has
not erred in concluding that the combination of Nitta and Nagai renders
dependent claim 4 unpatentable.

V. CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and
11 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 4 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5,7-9, and 11.
Appeal 2010-008896
Application 10/572,044

15
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

ELD