Ex Parte Morgan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2008

09573109 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DANIEL J. MORGAN
____________

Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: July 16, 2008
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and KEVIN F.
TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-
part.
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to digital display systems which
use pulse width modulation and act to ameliorate image contouring artifacts,
but do not induce spatial noise, temporal noise or other artifacts in the
produced image. (Spec. 4: 12-17).
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:

1. A method of ameliorating image artifacts in a pulse width
modulated display system, the method comprising the steps of:

receiving a series of input pixel intensity values;

converting each said pixel intensity value to at least one bit
pattern;

displaying each said bit pattern to form a series of image pixels,
at least one of said input pixel intensity values displayed
alternately by at least two said bit patterns, a first of said at least
two bit patterns having at least one active bit period with a
duration different than an active bit period duration of a second
of said at least two bit patterns.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Cawley US 5,404,427 Apr. 4, 1995
Koh US 5,534,883 Jul. 9, 1996

Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Koh.
Claims 6-8, 16-18, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Koh and Cawley.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
2
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), with respect to appealed claims 1-5, 9-
15, and 19-27, does Koh disclose all of the elements of those claims to
render them anticipated?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 6-8,
16-18, 28, and 29, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention have found it obvious to combine Koh and Cawley to render the
claimed invention unpatentable?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Specification details digital display systems which act to
ameliorate image contouring artifacts. This is accomplished, for a given
intensity, by using different time periods or bit patterns to provide that
intensity to the display. (Spec. 5: 2-19; Fig. 6).
2. Koh discloses a video signal interface that converts display data in
serial format, appropriate for a first display, into display data appropriate for
a second display. The gray-scale pattern generator sets the gray-scale
pattern information based on received data and four types of gray-scale
patterns are switched between by the gray-scale data generating circuit based
on the timing of the display. (Abstract; col. 5, ll. 17-48; Fig. 2).
3. Koh provides that the gray-scale data generator circuit receives 8-
bit input data signals, uses information regarding pattern length that can be
represented in 3 bits and uses information of 3-bit length which indicates by
bit units the gap between gray-scale patterns. (Col. 5, ll. 20-29).
3
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

4. Koh illustrates an example of a gray-scale pattern in which the
gray-scale pattern data is presented according to gray-scale pattern A or B
within successive frames. (Col. 9, ll. 8-14; Fig. 9B).
5. Cawley discloses a system in which individual picture points are
provided with a greater bit-accuracy than they are conveyed. Cawley
discloses that dot signals can be equated with video color levels having
different mixtures and that those color levels can be used to reduce the
danger of undesired visible effects due to use of digital signals. (Abstract;
Col. 2, ll. 38-43; Figs. 8a and 8b).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
1988). “‘[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741
(2007)(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359,
4
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the Specification explicitly states the meaning
that a term in the claim is intended to have, the claim is examined using that
meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant's
invention and its relation to the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22
(Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
I. Anticipation by Koh
Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-27
Appellant argues that nowhere in Koh does it describe artifacts or
pulse width modulation and that Koh is directed to a different endeavor.
(App. Br. 10). However, as the Examiner points out, (Ans. 9), the specific
subject matter referred to by Appellant appears in the preambles of
independent claims 1 and 111 and is not recited at all in independent claim
21. The preambles merely recite the purpose of the methods recited therein
and are not accorded patentable weight. Rather we focus on the steps of
those method claims and the elements of the display system recited in
independent claim 21. Appellant also argues that specific recitations in the
claims, such as “active bit period durations,” implicate pulse width
modulation. (Reply Br. 5-6). However, claims are not evaluated based on
what they imply, but by what they actually recite. As such, we find no basis
for requiring a disclosure in Koh of pulse width modulation, at least with

1 We acknowledge that Appellant notes that the use of pulse width
modulation is also recited in claim 22, although not in the preamble of that
claim. (Reply Br. 5-6). We address the specific subject matter of that claim
below.
5
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

respect to the independent claims, to affirm the anticipation rejection of
those claims.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Koh fails to teach that
“a first of said at least two bit patterns having at least one active bit period
with a duration different than an active bit period duration of a second of
said at least two bit patterns.” (App. Br. 11-12). The Examiner finds, (Ans.
12), that the different gray-scale patterns, i.e. A, B, A′, and B′, correspond to
the different bit patterns and Koh discloses that those patterns have different
display durations. (FF. 4). Appellant argues that Koh fails to disclose “bit
patterns” and “active bit period durations” of different lengths, as recited in
claim 1. (Reply Br. 1-2).
While Appellant’s Specification provides several embodiments
explaining how their system works, which Appellant explains at length,
(App. Br. 2-9; Reply Br. 1-5), the Specification does not, however, provide
specific definitions of a “bit pattern” and “active bit period durations,” that
preclude the Examiner’s interpretation of those limitations. (Ans. 3). Koh
details that pixel intensity values can be converted into bit patterns, (FF. 3),
and that those patterns through the use of the gray-scale patterns are
alternately used to display the image pixels. (FF. 2). The Examiner also
finds that certain gray-scale patterns have a certain active bit period, (FF. 4;
Ans. 12) and other gray scale patterns have different durations. While it is
clear that the bit patterns discussed in the instant Specification are not
identical to the bit patterns disclosed in Koh, we find that the bit patterns of
Koh fall within the scope of the limitation “bit patterns,” as recited in claim
1.
6
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

Appellant also argues that Koh only describes a single bit per pixel
being used rather than a bit pattern per pixel, as provided in claim 1. (Reply
Br. 2-3). However, Koh makes clear that multiple bit patterns are used to
relate the pixel intensity values to the new display, even if a single bit is
used to determine the state of the display pixel. Additionally, Appellant has
not shown that at least one bit pattern could not be a single bit; in other
words, we do not find the Specification to preclude the use of a single bit
constituting a bit pattern. As such, accepting the definitions applied by the
Examiner in the rejection, we find that Koh discloses all of the elements of
claim 1 and we find no error in its rejection.
With respect to claim 2, Appellant argues that Koh provides for
alternating patterns based on the line of the display screen and not on the
intensity value, as recited in claim 2. (App. Br. 12-13). However, we agree
with the Examiner that it was known in the art that a gray-scale value is a
pixel intensity value of the display. (Ans. 13). As such, the gray-scale
patterns selected would have to be, at least in part, based on the pixel
intensity value. As such, we find no error in the rejection of claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues that Koh establishes its
patterns regardless of the intensity of the neighboring input pixel intensity
values, as recited in claim 3. (App. Br. 14). Similarly, with respect to claim
4, Appellant argues that Koh establishes its patterns regardless of the relative
intensity of the neighboring input pixel intensity values, as recited in claim
4. The Examiner finds that the gray-scale patterns of Koh are “adjacent
corresponding to neighboring pixel,” (Ans. 13-14), but this does not suggest
that the formation by alternate display is determined by neighboring pixel
intensities, as recited in claims 3 and 4. As such, we do not find that Koh
7
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

anticipates the subject matter of claims 3 and 4. Similarly, claims 13 and 14
recite similar subject matter, and are also not anticipated by Koh.
Similarly, with respect to claim 5, Appellant argues that Koh fails to
teach whether the alternate display is used based on input pixel intensity
relative to at least one major bit boundary. (App. Br. 15). The Examiner
finds that gray-scale images are typically stored with 8 bits per pixel and that
is barely sufficient to avoid visible banding artifacts. (Ans. 14). However,
this is not responsive to the use of a bit boundary in determining the
alternate display. We can find nothing in Koh that provides for such an
alternative functionality based on a bit boundary and we do not find that Koh
anticipated the subject matter of claim 5. Similarly, claim 15 recites similar
subject matter, and is also not anticipated by Koh.
With respect to claim 11, Appellant relies on the same arguments
made with respect to claim 1 above, and argues that the same element in
both claims 1 and 11 is not taught by Koh. As we have discussed above,
accepting the definitions applied by the Examiner in the rejection, we find
that Koh discloses all of the elements of claim 11 and we find no error in its
rejection.
With respect to claim 21, Appellant makes similar arguments made
with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 17-18). The Examiner finds that Koh
discloses both a boundary dispersion processor and a display device, (Ans.
6), and that Koh discloses the input and the output word size of the RGB
display data (Ans. 16). For reasons similar to those made with respect to
claim 1 above, we find that Koh discloses all of the elements of claim 21 and
we find no error in its rejection.
8
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

With respect to claim 22, that claim recites that the display device
displays the output intensity word using pulse width modulation. While we
have agreed with the Examiner that Koh teaches all of the elements of claim
21, as discussed above, we can find no recitation of pulse width modulation
in Koh. The Examiner finds that Koh discloses the display using pulse
width modulation, (Ans. 6), but that section of Koh, or any other portion,
does not recite such a process for display. As such, we find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 as being anticipated by Koh.
With respect to claims 9, 10, 12, 19, 20, and 23-27, Appellant has
either raised no specific arguments for those claims or relied on arguments
discussed above where those claims have similar subject matter. As such,
we find no reversible error with respect to the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12,
19, 20, and 23-27 as being anticipated by Koh.

II. Obviousness over Koh and Cawley
Claims 6-8, 16-18, 28, and 29
Appellant argues that the above-discussed rejection over Koh is
unsupportable and that claims 6-8, 16-18, 28, and 29 should be allowed by
virtue of their dependence on the independent claims. (App. Br. 18). As we
affirm the anticipation rejection, we do not find this argument to be
compelling.
Appellant also argues that since Cawley does not relate to pulse width
modulated display systems and describes percentage mixes of different
colors, (App. Br. 18-19), there would be no motivation to combine Cawley
with Koh and any such combination would not teach or suggest the claimed
duty cycles of bit patterns for a same intensity. However, we find the
9
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

motivation supplied by the Examiner in the obviousness rejection, (Ans. 8),
to be sufficient and that the combination would provide the benefits
expressed therein. Also, while Cawley is concerned with mixtures of colors,
we find that such a mixture of color levels is used to reduce the danger of
undesired visible effects due to use of digital signals. (FF. 5). We agree
with the Examiner that the mixing of colors is analogous to the alternating of
duty cycles and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have changed to
the duty cycles similar to that taught by Cawley to achieve further reduction
in artifacts in the display of Koh. As such, Appellant has not persuaded us
of any error in the rejection of claims 6-8, 16-18, 28, and 29 over Koh and
Cawley.

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 9-12, 19-21, and
23-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Koh and rejecting claims 6-8, 16-
18, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Koh and Cawley is
affirmed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Koh is reversed.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-12, 16-21, and 23-29
before us on appeal are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5,
13-15, and 22 is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

10
Appeal 2008-1125
Application 09/573,109

gvw

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
11