Ex parte MANO et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 1999

07953807 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 30, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HIROYUKI MANO,
TOHSIO TANAKA,
TSUTOMU FURUHASHI,
MASAAKI KITAJIMA,
TOSHIO FUTAMI,
MASAKI MEGA, and
SHIGEYUKI TAKAHASHI
__________
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,8071
__________
HEARD: April 5, 1999
__________
Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
2
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-3-
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 8, and 10 through 17. Claim 18
has been allowed and claim 9 has been canceled.
The invention relates to a liquid-crystal display
system in which pixel units are displayed as ON data (white),
OFF data (black) or halftone data (ON data and OFF data
alternately in successive frames) in a manner to reduce
flickering.
In particular, prior art Figure 64 shows a display
in which the hatched lines (lines 1 and 3) represent a
halftone data display, i.e. a gray tone halfway between white
(ON) and black (OFF). The white lines (lines 2 and 4)
represent a white data display (ON). As shown in prior art
Figure 65, the halftone data display is obtained by
generating OFF data and ON data alternately in successive
frames, i.e. odd and even frames, as halftone data. The
halftone data for lines 1 and 3 changes from OFF data in the
odd frames to ON data in the even frames. Flickering appears
in the display of prior art Figure 64 since the frames making
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-4-
up the display of Figure 64 have all lines ON (white) for the
even frames as shown in prior art Figure 65.
Appellants reduce flickering as shown in Figures 12,
13(a) and 13(b). Figure 12 shows a display in which the
hatched lines (lines 1, 3, 5 and 7) represent halftone data
display, and the white lines (lines 2, 4, 6 and 8) represent
white data display (ON).
As shown in Figures 13(a) and 13(b), the halftone
data display is obtained by generating ON data and OFF data
alternately in successive frames, i.e. odd and even frames, as
halftone data. The halftone data for lines 1 and 5 changes
from ON data in the odd frames to OFF data in the even frames.
Conversely, the halftone data for lines 3 and 7 changes from
OFF data in the odd frames to ON data in the even frames.
Thus, the phase at which the ON data and the OFF data is
changed over for the lines 3 and 7 is inverted with respect to
the phase at which the ON data and the OFF data is changed
over for lines 1 and 5. This inverting of the phase of
changing-over the ON data and the OFF data of the halftone
data reduces flickering by dispersing the ON data displays of
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-5-
halftone data into separate frames as shown in Figures 13(a)
and 13(b), as opposed to concentrating the ON data displays
for halftone data in the same frame as shown in prior art
Figure 65 (even frames).
Figure 14 illustrates another display example where
halftones appear on the left and right half of a frame line.
Applying Appellants' invention, halftone display OFF data (and
display ON data) are uniformly distributed in the right and
left halves of each frame in both the odd and even frames
(Figures 15(a) and 15(b)), and flicker is less prone to arise.
When adjacent lines are simultaneously in halftone
data display states, the repetition of display ON and display
OFF for these lines, at the same timings, gives rise to
flicker. Therefore Appellants invert the timings to reduce
flicker.
"As set forth above, according to the [first]
embodiment of the present invention, the halftone patterns of
the successive patterns, in which the timings for affording
the display-ON and the display-OFF are changed [i.e. inverted]
at the adjacent dots or lines, are determined on the basis of
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-6-
the contents of the display data [as compared to the contents
of preceding display data held in a line memory], so that the
flickerless halftone displays are possible at all times
irrespective of display patterns." (Appellants' specification
at page 37 lines 6-13.)
In a second embodiment, Appellants generate
halftone data on the basis of the display data of a current
line (in other words, without employing any line memory and
without regard to the display data of a preceding line). In
this embodiment, the phase of changing over the first data
(e.g. ON) and the second data (e.g. OFF) is made different for
every pixel and for every line. For a halftone data pixel,
whether the first data (e.g. ON) or the second data (e.g. OFF)
is displayed first is previously determined based on (1) a
position of the pertinent line in a frame and (2) whether the
halftone pixel is assigned to an even frame or an odd frame.
The phase of changing over the first data (e.g. ON) and the
second data (e.g. OFF) is successively inverted at each
halftone data pixel on the pertinent line beginning with the
first halftone data pixel.
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-7-
For each embodiment, halftones need not be halfway
between white and black. Appellants' figure 26 illustrates
display data for 16 tones, having 14 different shades between
white and black. Increasing the number of tones requires a
commensurate increase in the number of frames used for each
tone.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A liquid-crystal halftone display system
comprising:
a data driver which receives liquid-crystal display
data corresponding to input display data representing any of
display-ON, display-OFF and a halftone display for each of a
plurality of pixels for one line, and which outputs said
liquid-crystal display data for one line as horizontal display
data;
a scan driver which designates a line of a liquid-
crystal panel for displaying said horizontal display data;
a liquid-crystal panel which displays said
horizontal display data as visible information on the line
designated by said scan driver;
a line memory in which the input display data is
stored for at least one line; and
halftone pattern generating means for generating
said liquid-crystal display data to be received by said data
driver by the use of contents of said line memory and the
input display data;
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-8-
wherein said halftone pattern generating means
includes:
ON data generating means for generating ON data in
response to the input display data which represents said
display-ON for a pixel;
OFF data generating means for generating OFF data in
response to the input display data which represents said
display-OFF for a pixel;
halftone data generating means for generating ON
data and OFF data alternately in successive frames as halftone
data in response to the input display data which represents
the halftone display for a pixel;
comparing means for comparing the input display data
for a pertinent line with the input display data for a
preceding line stored in said line memory for every line, the
preceding line being in a same frame as the pertinent line;
and
inverting means for inverting a phase of changing-
over said ON data and said OFF data of said halftone data in
accordance with an output of said comparing means.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Bassetti, Jr. et al. 5,185,602 Feb. 9, 1993
(Bassetti) (filed Apr. 10, 1989)

Claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bassetti.
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-9-
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 8 and 10 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Like Appellants, Bassetti teaches grayscale displays
(halftones) on a digitally commanded display system, including
a liquid-crystal display panel. Bassetti is also concerned
with decreasing the visual disturbance known as flickering.
However, Bassetti uses phase shifting to decrease flickering,
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-10-
with the phase selection being predetermined (as a phase
placement pattern) and stored in a memory (note column 4 lines
52-66). Appellants, on the other hand, determine phase
inversion (i.e. phase shifting of 180º) dependent on what was
displayed previously (using a line memory in the first
embodiment), or dependent on (1) a position of the pertinent
line in a frame and (2) whether the first halftone pixel is
assigned to an even frame or an odd frame (Appellants' second
embodiment).
Looking at Appellants' claims, we first note that
claims 1 through 7 are directed to the first embodiment, and
claims 8 and 10 through 17 are directed to the second
embodiment. Claims 1-7
Appellants argue "The Examiner has not explained why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
replace Bassetti's time delay unit or pixel memory 496 with a
line memory as would be required to meet the limitations of
claim 1." (Brief at page 18). Looking at claim 1 lines 14 and
15 we see "a line memory in which the input display data is
stored for at least one line;" and on lines 32-34 "comparing
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-11-
means for comparing the input display data for a pertinent
line with the input display data for a preceding line stored
in said line memory...".
The Examiner responds by citing Bassetti at column
14, lines 39-43, "When raster scan type of displays are
considered, crosstalk between the pixels of a single row and
between sequentially energized lines, and further between
sequentially energized frames must be further considered."
This suggested progression of Bassetti, from pixels to lines,
and further from lines to frames, is proffered by the Examiner
as the motivation to expand Bassetti's pixel comparison (with
a pixel memory) to a line comparison (with a line memory).
However, in the further context of this quote, Bassetti is
contemplating a more elaborate phase placement pattern, to go
beyond a two dimensional analysis, to a conceptualized three
dimensional analysis of multiple frames along a time axis, as
depicted in Figure 7E. This does not involve the storing of
any display data in memory, for subsequent comparison of
previous line display data to current line display data
(claimed as "display data for a pertinent line").
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-12-
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may
not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings
or suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Feb. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). We find no suggestion or
motivation in Bassetti for comparing display line data via a
line memory, as proffered by the Examiner. For this reason,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and accordingly,
dependent claims 2 through 7.
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-13-
We also note, without elaboration, agreement with
Appellants that Bassetti does not teach or suggest the
"inverting means for inverting....in accordance with an output
of said comparing means" as recited in claim 1. Bassetti's
phase changes are based on a predetermined phase placement
pattern, not on any display data comparison (also involving a
line memory). Even when Bassetti's phase placement pattern is
changed, it is changed in accordance with a calculation
(Bassetti at column 15 lines 34-48), and is predetermined.
Claims 8 and 10 through 17
Appellants' second embodiment does not require a
line memory, and is more like Bassetti in that Appellants'
initial phase (e.g. first data/second data or second
data/first data) of
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-14-
a halftone "is previously determined based on (1) a position
of the pertinent line in a frame and (2) whether the first
halftone pixel is assigned to an even frame or an odd frame;"
(claim 8 lines 24-26, emphasis added). Appellants urge that
"absent the applicants' disclosure, nothing whatsoever in
Bassetti discloses or suggests previously determining whether
first data or second data is outputted from halftone data
generating means for a first halftone pixel having a pertinent
tone on a pertinent line based on (1) a position of the
pertinent line in a frame and (2) whether the first halftone
pixel is assigned to an even frame or an odd frame as recited
in claim 8." (Brief at page 32).
The Examiner responds that this is taught by
Bassetti in Figure 9 by pattern memory 130 with position
control for (1) line position (input 134) and (2) frame (input
132); answer at page 10. Reviewing Bassetti (Figure 9) we
find that the phase placement pattern (phases 130a) and a
specific matrix cell within the selected phase placement
pattern (specific phase Px) are selected by (1) the position
of a pertinent line (input 134) in a frame and (2) whether the
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-15-
halftone is assigned to an even or odd frame (input 132), note
column 19 lines 51-65. We therefor agree with the Examiner
that this claim limitation is met by Bassetti.
Appellants further argue that Bassetti does not
disclose or suggest "wherein the phase of changing-over the
first data and the second data is successively inverted at
each halftone pixel having the pertinent tone on the pertinent
line", claim 8, lines 27-29.
The Examiner responds that the phase placement
pattern of Bassetti is a type of inverting which assures a
different phase for pixels in each line and each frame (answer
at the bottom of page 11 et seq.).
Although Bassetti reduces flickering by providing
different phases via a phase placement pattern, we find that
this is not the same as successively inverting the phase for a
pertinent halftone on a pertinent line as claimed. Inverting
a phase is not only a change in phase (as disclosed in
Bassetti), but a specific 180º phase change. And although the
simpler embodiments of Bassetti may be interpreted to include
180º (e.g. Figures 3B and 4E), we find no teaching for
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-16-
successively inverting the phase for a pertinent tone.
Because Bassetti uses a phase placement pattern, simpler
Bassetti patterns (e.g. Figures 3B and 4E), even one that
could be interpreted as successively inverting the phase,
would merely automatically repeat the same phase pattern for
all tones, and not recognize or be triggered by any pertinent
tone. The Federal Circuit states that "Additionally, when
determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be
considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable
'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237m
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). For these
reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and
likewise claims 10 through 17 dependent therefrom.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 8 and 10 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
-17-
REVERSED
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Antonelli, Terry, Stout & Kraus
Suite 1800
1300 North Seventeenth Street
Arlington, VA 22209
dem