Ex Parte Nurmi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201711594030 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/594,030 11/06/2006 Juha Nurmi 042933/417480 3615 10949 7590 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER SHAPIRO, LEONID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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): u sptomail @ alston .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUHA NURMI, KAJ SAARINEN, and ILKKA ANTERO HYYTIAINEN Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—15, 17—23, and 25—35, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention relates to electrically controllable reflectors for display pixels for optimizing a reflected portion of ambient light. Spec. Title, Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus comprising: an arrangement of display sub-pixels; and individually associated with each of said display sub pixels at least one reflector configured to reflect ambient light passing through said display sub-pixels, wherein each of said reflectors associated with said display sub-pixels comprises an effective reflective area, the size of the effective reflective area of a reflector being individually electrically controllable to vary between a minimum value and a maximum value, at least continuously or in a plurality of steps. Examiner’s Rejections & References (1) Claims 1, 3—6, 8, 15, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 30, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Verhaegh et al. (WO 2005/029449 Al; pub. Mar. 31, 2005) (“Verhaegh”) and Uemoto (US 7,447,417 B2; pub. Nov. 4, 2008). Final Act. 2-3. (2) Claims 7, 9-14, 19-22, 27—29, and 31—33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Verhaegh, Uemoto, and Brindel (WO 2005/045514 Al; pub. May 19, 2005). Final Act. 3-5. 2 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 8, 11—15, 19—23, and 27—33 Appellants argue independent claims 1,15, 23, and 30 as a group. App. Br. 6—11. We select claim 1 as representative. Appellants argue the combination of Verhaegh and Uemoto fails to teach or suggest an apparatus comprising “individually associated with each of said display sub-pixels at least one reflector configured to reflect ambient light passing through said display sub-pixels, wherein each of said reflectors associated with said display sub-pixels comprises an effective reflective area, the size of the effective reflective area of a reflector being individually electrically controllable to vary between a minimum value and a maximum value, at least continuously or in a plurality of steps,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—9. In particular, Appellants contend the Examiner has taken “inconsistent and conflicting interpretations, where a single element of Verhaegh’s disclosure [particle suspension 8] is interpreted to be two different features of the pending claim.” App. Br. 7. For example, Appellants argue that “Verhaegh’s particle suspension 8 cannot be [interpreted as] both the display pixel and the reflector associated with the display pixel,” and “while one might interpret the portions of Verhaegh’s particle suspension as equivalent to pixels, logically, it is clear that Verhaegh’s particle suspension cannot also be equivalent to reflectors individually associated with each pixel.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds that Verhaegh’s Figures 2 and 3 teach an arrangement of display pixels in the form of “cells.” Final Act. 2 (citing Verhaegh Figs. 2—3, item 8). The Examiner also cites Verhaegh’s particle suspension portions 8 as teaching Appellants’ claimed “reflectors” 3 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 individually associated with each of the pixels. Final Act. 2 (citing Verhaegh Figs. 2—3, pp. 6—7). We disagree with Appellants that it is inconsistent to rely on the particle suspension portions 8 as teaching both the pixels and the reflectors “individually associated with” each of the pixels. App. Br. 7. Verhaegh’s particle suspension portions comprise individual reflective particles as well as an insulating fluid. Verhaegh 7:10—12. Verhaegh also describes: Alternatively, or additionally, the transflector may be a suspended particle device in which portions are defined by spatial regions within a compartment housing a particle suspension. An image may then be displayed by the suspended particle device by using the portions as pixels and tuning the transmittance and reflectance properties of the portions accordingly. Verhaegh 2:30-3:3. Thus, the pixels are the space defined by portions of a particular volume of fluid and the reflective particles suspended in the fluid are the claimed reflectors associated with the pixels. Therefore, we do not interpret the Examiner’s rejection as relying on co-extensive elements of the prior art (e.g., the reflective particles within the suspension) as corresponding to separate limitations in the claim. In view of Verhaegh’s disclosure, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Verhaegh teaches “individually associated with each of said display [Jpixels at least one reflector configured to reflect ambient light passing through said display [Jpixels,” as required by claim 1. Additionally, Uemoto discloses “pixel regions 721 are positioned corresponding to one or more of the reflection regions 121,” where “[mjore than one of the reflection regions 121 may correspond to one of the pixel regions 721,” also 4 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 suggesting “individually associated with each of said display sub-pixels at least one reflector” as claimed. See Uemoto 14:26—30, Fig. 18. Appellants also contend Verhaegh’s particle suspension does not teach a reflector with an effective reflective area size that is individually electrically controllable to vary between a minimum value and a maximum value, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8—9. According to Appellants, Verhaegh merely discloses setting the transmittance or reflectance of the cells by “controlling a cell state, not changing ‘the size of the effective reflective area of a reflector’” because “[t]he size of any particle suspension cell in Verhaegh is not changed and thus ‘the size of the effective reflective area’ of any cell does not change.” App. Br. 9-10 (citing Verhaegh 12:7— 15); see also Reply Br. 1—2. We do not agree. The reflective particles within Verhaegh’s suspension 8 may be switched between a transmissive and reflective state by applying particular voltages at particular locations within the cell that tend to align the particles either parallel to or perpendicular to the outer surfaces of the pixel through which light passes. Verhaegh 8:19-9:22, Figs. 4, 5. By changing the angle of the reflective particles within the suspension, the effective reflective area of the reflector is changed, even if the size of the particles or particle suspension cell has not changed. We note Appellants’ Specification also describes an embodiment in which “moving charged particles with a reflective surface by means of an electrical field” is “used to adjust the reflectance-transmittance ratio of the reflector.” See Spec. 25:14—26:20, Fig. 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the claimed term “effective reflective area” precludes Verhaegh’s varying light-incident area of rotating 5 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 suspension particles as shown in Figure 4 (particle suspension fully transmissive at zero light-incident area) and Figure 5 (particle suspension fully reflective at maximum light-incident area). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claimed effective reflective area of a reflector being individually electrically controllable between minimum and maximum values is taught by Verhaegh’s on and off values. Ans. 4; Final Act. 2, 6 (citing Verhaegh 6—7, Fig. 3); see also Verhaegh 8—9. Appellants further argue Verhaegh does not teach “continuously controlling a value (the size of the effective reflective area of a reflector) between a minimum value and a maximum value.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend Verhaegh’s “mere disclosure of ‘on and off values’ is not equivalent to ‘the effective reflective area of a reflector being individually electrically continuously controllable [between] a minimum value and a maximum.’” Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 10. Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which recites varying “between a minimum value and a maximum value, at least continuously or in a plurality of steps” (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that Verhaegh teaches the disputed limitation because moving Verhaegh’s particles between the on and off positions would necessarily require either continuous or step-wise movement of the particles. Additionally, we note that Verhaegh’s variation between on and off values includes intermediate “grey” values between the on and off values. See Verhaegh 10:15. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Verhaegh and Uemoto. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and independent claims 15, 23, and 6 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 30. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 8, which are not argued separately. Appellants do not provide separate arguments for the rejection of dependent claims 11—14, 19-22, 27—29, and 31—33. Thus, for the same reasons as the independent claims from which they depend, we sustain the rejection of claims 11—14, 19-22, 27—29, and 31—33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Verhaegh, Uemoto, and Brindel. Claims 3, 17, and 25 Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “said reflectors comprise an electrically controllable reflection capability.” Claim 17, which depends from claim 15, and claim 25, which depends from claim 23, recite that “determining a required adjustment comprises determining a required adjustment of a reflection capability of said reflectors.” Appellants contend the Examiner makes “an omnibus rejection,” and Verhaegh fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of claims 3, 17, and 25. App. Br. 11—12. We do not agree. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 17, and 25 cites specific evidence that Appellants do not address. Specifically, the Examiner cites to Figures 4—5 and pages 8—9 of Verhaegh, which teach that reflector 8a has an electrically controllable reflection capability in accordance with a control voltage VI (see Verhaegh Fig. 4, 8:29-30 describing the particle suspension becomes wholly transmissive), and a control voltage V2 (see Verhaegh Fig. 5, 9:20—22 describing the particle suspension becomes wholly reflective). Final Act. 3 (citing Verhaegh Figs. 4—5, pp. 8—9). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Verhaegh teaches reflectors having an electrically 7 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 controllable reflection capability or adjustable reflection capability, as required by claims 3,17, and 25, respectively. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 17, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verhaegh and Uemoto. Claims 4, 18, and 26 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites, inter alia, that “said reflectors comprise mirrors and . . . the tilt of at least one mirror of the reflector is electrically controllable.” Claim 18, depending from claim 15, and claim 26, depending from claim 23, recite similar limitations. Appellants contend the cited portions of Verhaegh, including Figures 4—5 and pages 8—9, “fail[] to disclose, teach, or suggest anything related to reflectors which comprise mirrors or where the tilt of at least one mirror of the reflector is electrically controllable to vary the size of the effective reflective area of a reflector.” App. Br. 11—12. Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively challenge the Examiner’s findings that Verhaegh’s reflectors 8a comprise mirrors whose tilt is electrically controllable to vary the reflector’s effective reflective area. Final Act. 3 (citing Verhaegh Figs 4—5, pp. 8—9). In particular, Verhaegh’s Figures 4 and 5 disclose reflector 8a includes reflective particles as metallic platelets whose tilt is electrically controllable between a vertical tilt (see Verhaegh Figure 4) and a horizontal tilt (see Verhaegh Figure 5), to thereby vary the effective reflective area of reflector 8 a between zero (see Verhaegh 8:30 describing particle suspension 8a in Figure 4 becomes wholly transmissive) and a maximum reflective area (see Verhaegh 9:21—22 describing particle suspension 8a in Figure 5 becomes wholly reflective). 8 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 Further, Verhaegh’s reflective metallic platelets in reflector 8a (see Verhaegh 7:11—17), are commensurate with the broad description of “mirrors” in Appellants’ Specification. For example, Appellants’ Specification describes “electrically controllable mirrors, like Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) based mirrors.” Spec. 4:5—9 (emphasis added). Thus, the term “mirror” is not explicitly defined in Appellants’ Specification, but is described in a non-limiting fashion. Moreover, Appellants do not explain how the claim term “mirror” precludes Verhaegh’s reflective metallic platelets. On the record before us, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “mirror” as encompassing Verhaegh’s reflective metallic platelets, reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ Specification. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Verhaegh teaches mirrors whose tilt is electrically controllable for varying the effective reflective area of the reflectors, as required by claims 4, 18, and 26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 18, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verhaegh and Uemoto. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “said reflectors comprise an electrically controllable substrate.” The Examiner finds Verhaegh’s Figure 3 discloses reflectors with an electrically controllable substrate, as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Fig. 3, controller 21). Appellants contend Verhaegh’s controller 21 is not a reflector or an electrically controllable substrate, as required by claim 6. App. Br. 12. Rather, Verhaegh’s controller merely receives light sensor data and 9 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 determines whether a reflectance or transmittance state is desired. App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, which do not take into account Verhaegh’s entire disclosure regarding the effect of controller 21. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Verhaegh’s Figure 3 teaches reflectors electrically controlled by controller 21. Final Act. 3. In particular, Verhaegh’s pages 6—7, explaining the embodiment illustrated in Verhaegh’s Figures 1—3, teach reflectors 8 comprise anisometric reflective particles including “metallic platelets of silver, aluminium or chromium” suspended in a fluid, thereby teaching reflectors that comprise a metallic substrate of silver, aluminum, or chromium. See Verhaegh 7:9-14; see also Final Act. 2 (citing Verhaegh p. 7). Verhaegh further teaches the reflectors are electrically controllable by controller 21, which controls the reflectors’ orientation via voltages VI and V2 and switches 19, 20a, 20b, and 20c. See Verhaegh Fig. 3, pp. 8—9. Thus, Verhaegh’s reflectors comprise an electrically controllable substrate, as recited in claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verhaegh and Uemoto. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and further recites “color filters configured to color filter light passing through said display sub-pixels, wherein a separate reflector is associated with each display sub-pixel for each color filter.” The Examiner finds Brindel teaches color filters in color filter arrays of red, green and blue colors. Final Act. 4 (citing Brindel 7:29—30). The 10 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 Examiner finds the skilled artisan would have incorporated Brindel’s color filters into Verhaegh’s display apparatus where at least one reflector is individually associated with each display sub-pixel as disclosed by Uemoto. Final Act 4; see also Final Act. 2. A skilled artisan would have incorporated Brindel’s color filters in order to improve Verhaegh’s dual mode device to display colors, as does Brindel’s dual mode display. Final Act. 4 (citing Brindel p. 3 (“[T]he liquid crystal display further includes an artificial light source,” which “may be blocked and ambient light reflected . . . [or] may be exposed .... Accordingly, improved liquid crystal display having dual modes of operation responsive to ambient light may be provided . . . .” (emphasis added))); see also Verhaegh Figs. 4—5 (disclosing dual modes of operation between transmissive and reflective states). Appellants contend the cited portion of Brindel merely discloses a glass substrate patterned to create a color filter, which fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 7. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, which does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 based on the combination of Brindel, Verhaegh, and Uemoto. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verhaegh, Uemoto, and Brindel. Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and further recites, inter alia, a processor, circuitry, and/or memory and computer code configured to “cause 11 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 the apparatus to receive from a light sensor an indication of an intensity of ambient light, and to electrically control the size of the effective reflective area of said reflectors depending on said indication of an intensity of ambient light.” Appellants contend the Final Rejection merely points to Verhaegh’s controller 21 in Figure 3, which fails to provide reasoning or evidence as to how the features of claim 9 are taught by the cited controller. App. Br. 14. Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively challenge the Examiner’s findings that Verhaegh’s controller 21 receives an indication of an intensity of ambient light from a light sensor, and electrically controls the reflectors’ effective reflective area size based on the indication, as required by claim 9. In particular, Verhaegh’s Figure 3 teaches that controller 21 receives data on the level of ambient light from light sensor 22. See Verhaegh Fig. 3, 8:7—9 (“The control unit 21 receives data from a light sensor, such as a photodiode 22, which detects the level of ambient light 10 in the vicinity of the SPD 7.”)). Moreover, Verhaegh’s page 9, lines 11—16, teaches the controller controls switching of the SPD device from a transmissive state to a reflective state, when the light sensor/photodiode indicates a relatively high level of ambient light. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Verhaegh’s controller electrically controls the size of the reflectors’ effective reflective area depending on an indication of ambient light intensity, as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verhaegh, Uemoto, and Brindel. 12 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 Claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and further recites, inter alia, that the circuitry or the memory and computer code, together with the processor, are configured to: cause the apparatus to electrically control the size of the effective reflective area of said reflectors depending on said indication of an intensity of ambient light when an automatic mode is active and . . . cause the apparatus to receive information on a user input and to electrically control the size of the effective reflective area of said reflectors depending on said information on a user input and independently of an indication from said light sensor when the automatic mode is not active. Appellants contend Verhaegh’s controller 21 in Figure 3 fails to provide evidence as to how the features of claim 10 are taught. App. Br. 14. We concur with Appellants. The Examiner has not responded to Appellants’ arguments in the Answer. The Examiner relies on page 5, lines 1—5 and controller 21 of Verhaegh as teaching the limitations of claim 10. Final Act. 4 (citing Verhaegh 5:1—5; Fig. 3, control unit 21). We have reviewed the cited portions of Verhaegh and do not find they support the Examiner’s findings. For example, Figure 3 and column 5, lines 1—5 of Verhaegh disclose a control unit 21 tuning the transflector’s transmittance and reflectance properties, teaching an automatic mode, but the cited portions of Verhaegh do not teach that a manual or automatic “mode” may be active. Absent evidence of such teachings or reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to modify Verhaegh to include both modes, on the record before us, 13 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Verhaegh, Uemoto, and Brindel.2 Claims 34 and 35 Claim 34 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “the display sub-pixels are display sub-pixels of a liquid crystal display.” Claim 35, depending from claim 15, recites a similar limitation. Appellants contend the Examiner “provides no reasoning or evidence as to how the features of dependent Claims 34 and 35 are taught by the cited references.” App. Br. 13. We do not agree. The same teachings relied on by the Examiner as teaching pixels and sub-pixels in Verhaegh and Uemoto relevant to claim 1 also indicate that the pixels and sub-pixels are part of a liquid crystal display. Specifically, the Examiner cites to pages 6—7 and Figure 2 of Verhaegh, and column 14, lines 29-38 and Figure 18 of Uemoto, as teaching the limitations of claims 34 and 35. Final Act. 2 (citing Verhaegh, Fig. 2, pp. 6—7; Uemoto 14:29-38, Fig. 18). Pages 6—7 and Figure 2 of Verhaegh teach display pixels of a liquid crystal cell 2, and Figure 18 of Uemoto teaches sub-pixels of a liquid crystal display 700. See Verhaegh, Fig. 2, liquid crystal cell 2, pp. 6—7 (“[A] transflective display 1 . . . comprises a display device, such as a liquid crystal (LC) cell, indicated generally as 2 We note that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 14 Appeal 2016-004755 Application 11/594,030 2 ... . The LC cell 2 comprises liquid crystal material. . . (emphases added)); Uemoto 14:29-38, Fig. 18, display device 700 with color pixels 730; see also Verhaegh 3:1—3 (“[a]n image may then be displayed by the suspended particle device by using the portions as pixels''’ (emphasis added)), Uemoto 14:54 (“[djisplay device 700 includes a liquid crystal display paneF (emphasis added)). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Verhaegh and Uemoto teaches the display sub-pixels are part of a liquid crystal display. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verhaegh and Uemoto. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—9, 11—15, 17—23, and 25—35 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10 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 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation