Ex Parte Li et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 201914669116 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/669,116 03/26/2015 73635 7590 04/02/2019 The Watson Intellectual Property Group, PLC [Motorola] 3133 Highland Drive, Suite 200 Hudsonville, MI 49426 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shi-Yong Li 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. MM01051-US-NP 2729 EXAMINER LI,LIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): lchapa@watson-ip.com mloppnow@watson-ip.com docketing.mobility@motorola.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHI-YONG LI and FRED C. PETTINGER Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility, LLC. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for content adaptive backlight control. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: operating a backlight at a brightness setting using content adaptive backlight control that modifies a backlight intensity based on content for display; detecting whether video is playing on a display of an electronic device; and adjusting content adaptive backlight control aggressiveness when video is playing on at least a portion of the display. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chiu Kurikko Tanaka US 2007/0297511 Al US 2013/0147857 Al US 2015/0054863 Al REJECTIONS Dec. 27, 2007 June 13, 2013 Feb.26,2015 Claims 1-5 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Kurikko. Claims 11, 12 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kurikko and further in view of Chiu. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kurikko and further in view of Tanaka. 2 Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 Claims 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and further in view ofKurikko. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and further in view of Chiu. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and further in view ofKurikko. OPINION Except where noted, we adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. SeeExparteFrye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI2010) (precedential); Hyattv. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( the Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Claims 1-5 and 7-9 Rejected under 35 US.C. § 102(a)(l) Appellants argue that Kurikko does not disclose operating a backlight at a brightness setting using Content Adaptive Backlight Control (C-ABC) that modifies a backlight intensity based on content for display along with adjusting C-ABC aggressiveness when video is playing on at least a portion of the display, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7-10. In particular, Appellants argue that Kurikko discloses the normal operation of C-ABC and does not disclose the extra step of adjusting the aggressiveness of the C-ABC, much less adjusting the C-ABC "aggressiveness" when video is playing. App. Br. 9. 3 Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. At the outset, we note that the Specification does not define the term "aggressiveness." See Spec. It is true that a "claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history." CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, Appellants point to no definition of the term "aggressiveness" in the Specification, and we are unable to discern one. Given that the Specification sets forth no clear definition of the disputed claim term, we determine that the term should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.") The Specification describes, in pertinent part, "[t]he controller 110 can adjust content adaptive backlight control aggressiveness by instructing the content adaptive backlight control module 120 to adjust content adaptive backlight control aggressiveness to reduce more backlight intensity when video is playing." Spec. ,r 13 ( emphases added). Accordingly, the claimed limitation of "adjusting content adaptive backlight control aggressiveness" means reducing the backlight intensity. Furthermore, during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage." Id. at 1364. Conditional steps employed in a method 4 Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 claim need not be found in the prior art if, under the broadest reasonable construction, the method need not invoke the steps. Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3---6 (PTAB April 28, 2016) ( concluding the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim encompassed situations in which conditional method steps "need not be reached") (precedential). Thus, the limitation of "adjusting content adaptive backlight control aggressiveness when video is playing on at least a portion of the display" ( emphasis added) is conditional upon video playing and need not be found in the prior art. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Kurikko discloses operating a backlight at a brightness setting using content adaptive backlight control that modifies a backlight intensity based on content and this way power consumption may also be reduced. See Ans. 2-3, 5---6, citing paras. 94, 95 and Fig. 4. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Kurikko discloses detecting whether video is playing on a display of an electronic device, and in particular disclosing that the detector 22 may be configured to detect content by detecting the rate at which frames of data 32 are sent to the frame memory 18, and/or the rate at which frames of data 34 are sent to the display 20 from the frame memory 18. Ans. 3, citing para. 80 and also see para. 81. We also agree with the Examiner that Figure 5 shows the apparatus containing a detector for detecting the content of frame data playing on a display panel, and the processor adjusting the content adaptive backlight control and/or called dynamic backlight (BL) control aggressiveness depending on the detecting results of the content of frame data displayed on the display panel in order to modify the intensity of the backlight. Ans. 3. 5 Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 Additionally, the Examiner finds, even though not required, that Kurikko discloses adjusting content adaptive backlight control when video is playing on at least a portion of the display. Ans. 3-9. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Kurikko discloses that C-ABC includes luminance setting and duty ratio selection. Ans. 8, citing para. 34. We agree with the Examiner that Figure 5 shows the detector detecting the content of frame data, the processor adjusting the C-ABC and/or the dynamic backlight (BL) control aggressiveness based on the detection result, and inserts a particular size of blank subfield and/ or sub-frame into the content of frame data to reduce the intensity ofbacklight. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the C-ABC and duty ratio adjustment in Kurikko are, at the very least, interweaved, and are used in conjunction with each other with no distinguishable difference as compared to the claimed invention of "detecting whether video is playing on a display of an electronic device; and adjusting content adaptive backlight control aggressiveness when video is playing on at least a portion of the display" as recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue with respect to claim 3 that "Kurikko does not disclose adjusting C-ABC aggressiveness by reducing backlight intensity when video is playing on at least a portion of a display relative to backlight intensity when video is not playing on at least a portion of the display, as recited in dependent claim 3." App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding that in claim 3, "reducing backlight intensity when video is playing on at least a portion of the display relative to backlight intensity when video is not playing on at least a portion of the display" does not require the former condition backlight intensity to be lower than the latter 6 Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 backlight intensity condition; only that the former is relatively reduced compared to the latter. Ans. 6, citing Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows adjusting content adaptive backlight control and duty ratio based on detected context/content (steps 54, 56) and paragraph 22 discloses that "duty ratio" refers to controlling the insertion of blank fields with respect to frames of data displayed on the display for the selected luminance setting. Ans. 6. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 and of claims 2, 4, 5, and 7-9, which stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Kurikko. Claims 11, 12 and 17-19 Rejected under 35 USC§ 102(a)(2) as Being Anticipated by Tanaka Appellants argue Tanaka does not disclose a content adaptive backlight control module configured to operate the backlight at a brightness setting that modifies backlight intensity and image data to display based on content for display and a controller configured to detect whether video is playing on the display and configured to modify adjustment aggressiveness of the content adaptive backlight control module when video is playing on at least a portion of the display, as recited in independent claim 11. App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Figure 2 of Tanaka shows the timing generator of the controller provides a signal to the latch circuit, in which the latch circuit combined the controller signal and the content of display signal RGBD to send a modification signal to the content adaptive backlight control for adjustment. Ans. 9-13; also see Final Rej. 8-11. However, Tanaka further discloses that the backlight intensity is determined by the duty cycle of the pulse-width modulation signal and if, for example, the value of the duty cycle of the pulse-width 7 Appeal2017-010759 Application 14/669,116 modulation signal is denoted by the symbol "DR" (i.e., dark image), the backlight intensity is adjusted to low, resulting in low backlight power consumption. See para. 3. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the system modifies backlight intensity based on brightness rather than "based on content" as required by claim 11 ( emphasis added). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 and for the same reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 12-19. Claims 6 and 10 Rejected under 35 US.C. § 103 We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6 and 10 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Appellants have not argued these claims separately. Claim 20 Rejected under 35 US.C. § 103 Appellants argue that the combination of Kurikko and Tanaka does not teach or suggest reducing backlight intensity when video is playing on at least a portion of the display relative to backlight intensity when video is not playing on at least a portion of the display, as recited in independent claim 20. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 for the reasons set forth supra with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 20 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-19 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation