Ex Parte Montag

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

11458138 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE MONTAG
____________

Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals 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
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention (1) communicates user display presentation
parameter input from a local display input device to an information handling
system; (2) adjusts visual information presentation parameters; and (3)
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

2
communicates visual information with the adjusted parameters from the
information handling system to the display for presentation. See generally
Spec. 3-4; Fig. 1. Claim 10 is illustrative:
10. A method for managing user inputs to an information handling
system display, the method comprising:
detecting a user display presentation parameter input to a local display
input device;
communicating the user display presentation parameter input from the
display to the information handling system;
applying the user display presentation parameter input to adjust visual
information presentation parameters;
communicating visual information having the adjusted display
presentation parameters from the information handling system to the display;
and
presenting the visual information at the display with the adjusted
display presentation parameters.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Arai (US 6,549,970 B2; Apr. 15, 2003), Hwang (US
2005/0285847 A1; Dec. 29, 2005), and Sean Shek (US 2005/0171906 A1;
Aug. 4, 2005). Ans. 3-6.1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arai, Hwang, Sean Shek, and Sasaki (US 2004/0064603
A1; Apr. 1, 2004). Ans. 7.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arai, Hwang, Sean Shek, and Jeon (US 2003/0234820
A1; Dec. 25, 2003). Ans. 7-8.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed November
9, 2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 4, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed March 25, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

3
4. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hwang and Sean Shek. Ans. 8-11.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hwang, Sean Shek, and Jeon. Ans. 11-12, 14-
15.2
6. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hwang, Sean Shek, and Arai. Ans. 12-13.
7. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hwang, Sean Shek, and Sasaki. Ans. 13-14.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HWANG AND SEAN SHEK
The Examiner finds that Hwang discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 10 except for (1) applying user display presentation
parameter input to adjust visual information presentation parameters; (2)
communicating visual information having the adjusted display presentation
parameters from the information handling system to the display; and (3)
presenting the visual information at the display with the adjusted parameters.
Ans. 8-9, 16. The Examiner, however, cites Sean Shek as teaching this
feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 9,
16, 18.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
recited communicating and presenting steps since Hwang’s auto adjustment
is performed at the display controller, not the graphics controller, and Sean

2 Although the Examiner separately rejects claims 12 and 18-20 over
Hwang, Sean Shek, and Jeon (compare Ans. 11-12 with Ans. 14-15), we
nonetheless consolidate those rejections here for clarity and brevity.
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

4
Shek merely allows users to edit images to change the images themselves—
not the display that presents those images. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-3.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 by finding
that Hwang and Sean Shek collectively would have taught or suggested (1)
communicating visual information having adjusted display presentation
parameters from the information handling system to the display; and (2)
presenting the visual information at the display with the adjusted
parameters?

ANALYSIS
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 15
We begin by noting that the Examiner apparently maps the recited (1)
“local display input device” to Hwang’s display apparatus 30a in Figure 2,
and (2) “information handling system” to Hwang’s computer 10a with
graphics controller 13a. See Ans. 9 (referring to Hwang ¶¶ 0049-51 which
references Figure 2); Ans. 16. When a user selects auto adjustment via the
display apparatus 30a’s “auto adjustment selecting portion” 35a (e.g., a
button on the display apparatus), the display apparatus sends an event signal
to the computer which, in turn, sends (1) a predetermined video signal, and
(2) a first control signal back to the display apparatus to execute auto
adjustment. Hwang, ¶¶ 0049-52, 0058-62; Figs. 2-3 (steps S12-S15).
Based on this functionality, we agree with the Examiner that Hwang’s
“information handling system” (computer) receives a “user display
presentation parameter input” from the display based on the first event
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

5
signal. Although this received input is arguably “applied” at the computer at
least with respect to selecting appropriate video and control signals to send
to the display apparatus, the actual display adjustment occurs at the display
apparatus—not the computer. See id.
The Examiner alludes to Hwang’s adjusting the computer’s video
signal parameters by noting that Hwang’s “visual information (video signal)
ha[s] display presentation parameters (such as brightness) adjusted (auto
adjustment) according to inputs made at a display . . . .” Ans. 16 (bolding
omitted; our emphasis added). To be sure, Hwang’s video signals include
picture information regarding brightness and color which allows the display
apparatus to analyze associated characteristics for auto adjustment. Hwang
¶ 0053. But as noted above, Hwang’s auto adjustment occurs at the display
apparatus—not the computer. So to the extent that the Examiner equates
adjusting the video signal’s associated display presentation parameters via
this auto adjustment, these adjusted display presentation parameters are not
communicated from the information handling system to the display as claim
10 requires. Although Hwang’s computer sends video signals with display
presentation parameters to the display device, these parameters are adjusted
after this transmission—a post-transmission adjustment that the Examiner
apparently acknowledges. See Ans. 16 (referring to an “auto adjusted video
signal” (emphasis added)).
Nevertheless, the Examiner cites Sean Shek to cure this deficiency.
Sean Shek’s vending machine allows users to display and edit selected
images including adjusting brightness or contrast, adding borders, etc. Sean
Shek ¶ 0018. According to the Examiner, this allows users to (1) adjust an
image’s display parameters (e.g., brightness or contrast) using buttons on
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

6
the display, and (2) present visual information at the display with those
adjusted parameters. Ans. 16, 18.
We see no error in this reasoning, for nothing in the claim precludes
“display presentation parameters” from being those associated with image
data which directly affect the image’s presentation on a display, such as
brightness or contrast. Although Appellant emphasizes the difference
between changing a picture’s brightness and contrast versus that of a display
(App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2), Appellant identifies no definition of the term
“display presentation parameters” in the Specification that precludes the
Examiner’s interpretation. As such, providing Sean Shek’s image display
parameter adjustment application, communication, and presentation
functions in conjunction with Hwang merely predictably uses prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). That Hwang
uses picture data 16a stored in the computer’s hard disk in connection with
auto adjustment as Appellant acknowledges (Reply Br. 2) only bolsters the
Examiner’s position in this regard. Although auto adjustment occurs at
Hwang’s display apparatus based partly on the picture data, nothing in the
claim precludes additional image display parameter adjustments at the
computer in view of Sean Shek. As such, Hwang does not teach away from
the Examiner’s proposed combination as Appellant asserts (Reply Br. 3), but
rather, adding Sean Shek’s image adjustment technique to Hwang’s
computer predictably enhances Hwang’s display-based auto-adjustment
capabilities via these additional computer-based adjustments.
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

7
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 10, and claims 11, 13, and 15 not separately argued
with particularity.

Claim 17
Although Appellant nominally argues the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17 separately (App. Br. 5-6), Appellant reiterates arguments similar to
those for claim 10 which we find to be unpersuasive for the reasons noted
previously.

THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 12, 14, 16, AND 18-20
Because we find Appellant’s arguments regarding independent claims
10 and 17 unpersuasive as noted above, we likewise are unpersuaded of
error in the rejections of dependent claims 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 (Ans. 11-
15) which were not separately argued.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ARAI, HWANG, AND SEAN SHEK
For the reasons noted above and by the Examiner, we are unpersuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Hwang and Sean Shek for teaching the
recited display input manager associated with a graphics subsystem in
concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious over the cited prior art’s
collective teachings. Ans. 3-4, 20. Appellant’s arguments regarding Hwang
and Sean Shek (App. Br. 6) are unavailing for the reasons noted previously.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, and claims 2-6 and 8 not separately argued with
particularity.
Appeal 2010-007145
Application 11/458,138

8

THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 7 AND 9
Since we find Appellant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1
unpersuasive as noted above, we likewise are unpersuaded of error in the
rejections of dependent claims 7 and 9 (Ans. 7-8) which were not separately
argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 103.

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

AFFIRMED

babc