Ex Parte Leigh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2013

11585376 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STAN E. LEIGH, WILLIAM J. ALLEN,
RICHARD AUFRANC, and ARNOLD W. LARSON
____________

Appeal 2011-004151
Application 11/585,376
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of displaying an image
with a display device utilizing sub-frame shifting parameters which are
Appeal 2011-004151
Application 11/585,376

2
identified based on at least one of image characteristics of the image and
system status information. See Specification 30, Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with emphasis added to the key disputed
limitations:
1. A method of displaying an image with a display device, the
method comprising:

receiving image data for the image;

identifying sub-frame shifting parameters based on at least one of
image characteristics of the image, and system status information;

generating a first plurality of sub-frames corresponding to the
image data and based on the identified sub-frame shifting
parameters; and

displaying the first plurality of sub-frames at a first plurality of
spatially offset sub-frame display positions using the identified
shifting parameters, thereby producing a displayed image.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Tretter US 2005/0068335 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Margulis US 6,340,994 B1 Jan. 22, 2002

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tretter. Ans. 4-11.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tretter and Margulis. Ans. 11-13.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2010;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 14, 2010; and the Reply Brief
filed November 12, 2010.
Appeal 2011-004151
Application 11/585,376

3

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Tretter discloses
“identifying sub-frame shifting parameters based on at least one of image
characteristics of the image, and system status information” as set forth in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 12 and 17.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-14) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-11) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions. We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of
the references as follows.
The Examiner finds that Tretter discloses, at paragraph [0027],
“resolution adjustment unit 34 receives image data 16 for image frame 28
and adjusts a resolution of image data 16 for display on display device 26”;
and: “More specifically, image processing unit 24 receives image data 16 for
image frame 28 at an original resolution and processes image data 16 to
increase, decrease, or leave unaltered the resolution of image data 16.” Ans.
14. Separately, the Examiner finds that Tretter, at paragraph [0037],
discloses sub-frames which are “temporally and spatially offset from each
other.” Id.
Appellants admit that Tretter discloses that an image frame and image
Appeal 2011-004151
Application 11/585,376

4
data have resolution, and that Tretter discloses shifting of sub-frames;
however, Appellants argue that there is no disclosure within Tretter that the
sub-frame shifting parameters are identified “based on” at least one of image
characteristics of the image, and system status information. Reply Br. 3.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that
Tretter discloses “that one set of sub-frame shifting parameters are selected
if the image frame 28 has a first resolution, and a second set of sub-frame
shifting parameters are selected if the image frame 28 has a second
resolution” despite the Examiner’s reliance on “image characteristics” as the
basis for identifying sub-frame shifting parameters. Reply Br. 3.
We find the Appellants’ argument persuasive. The mere disclosure
within Tretter of sub-frame shifting and an admission therein that an image
has resolution are not sufficient evidence, in our opinion, to anticipate the
claimed invention of “identifying sub-frame shifting parameters based on at
least one of image characteristics of the image, and system status
information” as set forth in claim 1.
Each of Appellants’ independent claims 1, 12, and 17 recites
identifying sub-frame shifting parameters, or a sub-frame generation
algorithm, “based on at least one of image characteristics of the image and
system status information.” Consequently, the Examiner erred by rejecting
claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-19 as anticipated by Tretter under § 102(b). It
follows that the Examiner also erred in rejecting dependent claims 10, 15,
and 20 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tretter and Margulis.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20.
Appeal 2011-004151
Application 11/585,376

5

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw