Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2008

10388500 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte KYU TAE LEE
_____________

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: August 20, 2008
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 16.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to apparatus for displaying characters on a
screen with reduced sized fonts data. The apparatus reads the fonts data for a
Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

scan line and displays the data on two consecutive lines. See page 2, and
figure 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for displaying characters, comprising:
storage means for storing fonts data of a character; and
character image generation means for displaying the fonts data
of the character stored in said storage means by always repeating in
successive even and odd fields a display of the fonts data.

REFERENCE
Morrish US 6,392,650 B1 May 21, 2002
(filed May 14, 1999)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 6, and 11 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Morrish. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 4 through 6 of the Answer.
Claims 7 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morrish. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 8 and 9 of
the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
April 12, 2007), Reply Brief (received September 26, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed July 26, 2007) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 8 and 12 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 16 is in error. Appellant asserts Morrish does
not teach always repeating display of fonts data as recited in the independent
claims. Br. 9, 10. Rather, Appellant asserts that Morrish teaches performing
2

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

a calculation of the number of lines of a base character that need to be
repeated, thus Morrish “merely teaches ‘selective’ repeating” lines and not
always repeating lines, as claimed. App. Br. 11, 12. Appellant recognizes
that there is a situation where Morrish will repeat every line of the reference
character, but argues that this is not always repeating lines, as claimed. App.
Br. 12.
Initially, we note that Appellant’s arguments do not differentiate
between the two rejections based upon Morrish, thus we will consider the
Appellant to have argued that each rejection is in error for the same reason.
Appellant’s contentions with respect to both the anticipation rejection and
the obviousness rejection based upon Morrish present us with the issue of
whether the Examiner erred in finding that Morrish teaches always repeating
in successive even and odd fields a display of fonts data as claimed.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Morrish teaches a signal generator for generating characters for an On
Screen Display (OSD) where the characters are a constant height
regardless of the number of lines in the display screen. Abstract.
2. Morrish teaches that OSD character generators are font based
generators that use a page of characters stored in memory. Col. 1, ll.
14-16.
3

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

3. Morrish teaches that one problem with OSD character generators is
that when the mode of operation of the display changes the number of
lines in the display changes which also changes the height of the
characters displayed. Morrish works to solve this problem by
repeating some of the lines of the font data. Col. 1, ll. 41-50, ll. 63,-
66.
4. Morrish shows, in figure 11, the image line number in the first column
while the next seven columns show which line number of the
character to is be displayed Morrish teaches where the display is in a
mode where there are between 648-748 vertical lines (i.e. R=2. I=0),
the character generator repeats each line of the character font. See
data in col. 6 of figure 11.
5. Morrish teaches that once the parameters for the OSD character
generator are set, they remain constant thereafter. Col. 3, l. 65- col. 4,
ll. 2.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection.
Initially, we note that Appellant’s Brief identifies each independent
claim rejected, on pages 13 and 14 of the Brief. However, these statements
associated with each claim merely recite the limitations of the claim and
state that they are not taught. Such statements are not separate arguments
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). As such, Appellant has grouped all of
the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) together. We select claim 1 as
representative.
4

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
finding that Morrish teaches always repeating in successive even and odd
fields a display of fonts data as claimed. Claim 1 recites a “character image
generation means for displaying the fonts data of the character stored in said
storage means by always repeating in successive even and odd fields a
display of the fonts data.” Thus, the scope of the claim includes a generation
means (an on screen display generation unit, Specification p 4, ll. 8-9) that
displays font data stored in a storage means (memory, Specification p. 4, ll.
7-8). The generation means always repeats a display of font data in
successive fields.
The Examiner finds that Morrish teaches these limitations. We
concur with the Examiner’s findings. Morrish teaches a device which
includes an OSD unit that uses font data stored in memory. Fact 2. Based
upon the mode of the display the parameters of the OSD generation unit will
be set such that the unit will repeat lines of the font data. Facts 3 and 4.
When the monitor is in a mode where there are between 648 and 728 vertical
lines, the OSD generating unit will repeat in successive even and odd fields
a display of the font, i.e. character data, line 1 will be displayed in line 2 and
repeated in line 3. When the monitor is in this mode, all character lines will
be similarly repeated. Fact 4. Once the parameters of the OSD unit are set
they remain constant. Fact 5. Thus, Morrish teaches that once the
parameters are set to repeat successive even and odd fields, the OSD
generator will always use the same parameters, and all font data from the
memory to be displayed will be repeated in successive even and odd fields.
As such, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection as we find ample evidence to support the
5

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

Examiner’s finding that Morrish teaches always repeating in successive even
and odd fields a display of fonts data as claimed. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6, and 11 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Morrish.
Obviousness rejection.
As discussed supra, Appellant’s have not separately addressed the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7 through 10 based upon
Morrish. Accordingly, we consider Appellant’s arguments directed to the
anticipation rejection based upon Morrish to be also applied to the
obviousness rejection. As discussed supra, Appellant’s arguments directed
to the anticipation rejection have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. We are similarly, not persuaded of error, and sustain in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

SUMMARY
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 16. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6, and 11 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is 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)(1)(iv).

6

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

AFFIRMED

gvw

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
P.O. BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, BA 2040-0747

7

Appeal 2008-2511
Application 10/388,500

8