Ex Parte Orlick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2016

13511534 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/511,534 05/23/2012
74507 7590
Dolby Laboratories Inc.
1275 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
09/06/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher J. Orlick
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.
D09084US01 8859
EXAMINER
REED, STEPHEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2016 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):
mguo@dolby.com
Patents@dolby.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. ORLICK, JEROME D. SHIELDS, and
SCOTT J. MILLER
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 90-105, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to controlling backlight panels of dual
modulation displays in response to input image data. See generally Spec. 1.
Claim 90 is exemplary:
90. A method for determining backlight drive values for
backlight elements of a backlight panel of a dual modulation
display, said dual modulation display comprising a front panel
illuminated by said backlight panel, in response to input image
data indicative of an image to be displayed, the method
comprising the steps of:
(a) determining statistical data indicative of at least one
statistical measure of each of a number of spatially compact
subsets of pixels of image data, wherein each spatially compact
subset of pixels comprises a block whose spatial location in the
input image corresponds to a subset of the pixels in said front
panel that is illuminated by a subset of said backlight elements,
including by performing at least one nonlinear operation on
each of the spatially compact subsets, where said front panel
having a first resolution, the image data being mapped to the
first resolution, the statistical data have resolution lower than
the first resolution, and the pixels of image data comprise
elements of the group consisting of pixels of the input image
data, color components of pixels of the input image data, and
data values derived from pixels of the input image data, and
band-limiting the statistical data; and
(b) determining the backlight drive values from the band-
limited statistical data, wherein the statistical data are indicative
of the mean and standard deviation of each of the spatially
compact subsets, and step (a) comprises a step of determining
standard deviation values including by filtering mean values of
the spatially compact subsets to determine filtered mean values,
and squaring each of the filtered mean values.
2
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
References and Rejections
Claims 90-97 and 101-103 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Seetzen (US PG-Pub 2007 /0216819 A 1; published
Sept. 20, 2007), Fletcher (US PG-Pub 2009/0219244 Al; published Sept. 3,
2009), and Damberg (US PG-Pub 2009/0201320 Al, published Aug. 13,
2009).
Claims 98-100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seetzen, Fletcher, Damberg, and Kerofsky (US PG-Pub
2009/0267876 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009).
Claims 104 and 105 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seetzen, Fletcher, Damberg, and Kerofsky.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 90.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below. 1
Appellants contend Seetzen and Fletcher do not collectively teach
"determining statistical data indicative of at least one statistical measure of
each of a number of spatially compact subsets of pixels of image data," as
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2).
3
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
recited in claim 90. See App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular,
Appellants assert "Seetzen does not teach, disclose or suggest the use of
'statistical data' anywhere within the reference" and "Fletcher (at paragraphs
0068-0069 and elsewhere) does not disclose the mean and/or standard
deviation for any spatially compact subset of pixels." App. Br. 12-13; see
also App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
In response to the Examiner's explanation in the Answer, Appellants
concede "Seetzen utilizes statistics." Reply Br. 2.
Additionally, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
provides further findings showing Seetzen and Fletcher collectively teach
the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner
finds:
Appellant makes specific reference to [0067]-[0068] in their
arguments. However, [0069] of Fletcher states: "Another exemplary
algorithm is to calculate the average luma and standard deviation of
the Zuma of the image. Then the luma gain of the image may be
determined by a number of standard deviations (or other statistical
measures) that are desired to be preserved within the image." Further,
Fletcher notes at [0071] that the intensity of the backlight can be
dynamically calculated to provide different images to be displayed on
the screen. At [0072], Fletcher again notes that calculations can be
made to determine pixel values. Thus, Fletcher does teach the use
calculations of statistical data, utilizing an average and standard
deviation, to determine the intensity of the pixels.
[Further], Fletcher . .. teaches utilizing the calculated Zuma
gain, which is done by using statistical data, on a compact subset of
pixels. As provided in [0072], the backlight can adjust the pixel
intensity values on selected portions of the display, based on the
determined pixel luma value. Additionally, [0080]-[0084] describes
how Fletcher can adjust and utilize the statistical data on a portion of
4
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
the display pixels. . . . l 0082 J notes that an adjustment may be made
on selected pixels, which shows that a subset of pixels may be
adjusted due to statistical data.
Ans. 3--4 (emphases added).2
Appellants fail to persuasively respond to such findings and therefore,
fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). In
particular, Appellants do not critique the Examiner's finding that "Fletcher
does teach the ... calculations of statistical data, utilizing an average and
standard deviation" (Ans. 3). Likewise, Appellants do not persuasively
respond to the Examiner's findings that "spatially compact subsets of pixels
of image data" are taught by or would have been obvious in light of
Fletcher's teachings. See Ans. 4; Fletcher i-f 72 ("adjust the pixel intensity
values of selected portion(s) of the image"); i182 ("an adjustment is applied
to the selected pixels in the image"). 3
2 Appellants' argument about "a single pixel scenario" (Reply Br. 4) is
inadequate for showing reversible error, because of the Examiner's findings
based on Fletcher's paragraphs 72 and 82, which teach more than a single
pixel.
3 Cumulatively, the Examiner cites Fletcher's paragraph 68, which states:
"One exemplary algorithm which may be implemented to determine a
percentage is to analyze all or part of the histogram." Fletcher i-f 68
(emphasis added). Appellants' argument that the cited Fletcher portions
"does not necessarily teach the use of 'statistical data' on a 'compact subset
of pixels"' (App. Br. 14 (emphasis added)) is unpersuasive: in an
obviousness determination, the Examiner does not need to show the
reference necessarily teaches the disputed claim limitation. In any event,
Appellants have not persuasively shown how their interpretation of the cited
5
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
Further, Appellants argue:
The Answer/Office Actions do not cite any
corresponding structure and/ or teaching in Fletcher wherein the
required statistical data of blocks corresponding to subsets of
pixels illuminated by a subset of backlight elements is taught or
suggested.
[T]he limitations of Claim 90 noted above that "each
compact subset of pixels" comprise: (1) "a block"; (2) "whose
spatial location"; (3) "corresponds to a subset of the pixels in
said front panel"; and (4) "that is illuminated by a subset of said
backlight elements". And, for each of these "compact subset of
pixels", Claim 90 yet further requires that statistical data be
determined and then applied to the backlight elements
("determining the backlight values from the ... statistical data
[determined for] each of the spatially compact subsets'') -
thereby effecting dual modulation on a block-by-block basis.
[E]ven if Fletcher's histogram were deemed some type of
block based statistic, the histogram is not applied to elements of
the backlight, which, as noted above, are absent from Fletcher.
Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive, because the Examiner
finds-and Appellants fail to offer any substantive argument to dispute-
"wherein each spatially compact subset of pixels comprises a block whose
spatial location in the input image corresponds to a subset of the pixels in
said front panel that is illuminated by a subset of said backlight elements"
and "determining the backlight drive values" are taught by or would have
been obvious in light of Seetzen's teachings. See Final Act. 3--4; Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F .2d at 391.
In the Reply and for the first time, Appellants belatedly argue:
Fletcher portion (App. Br. 15) is correct, as Appellants do not cite any
evidence to support their interpretation (App. Br. 15).
6
Appeal2015-006535
Application 13/511,534
[T]he Otlice Actions and the Answer each fail to provide
a rational underpinning to modify Seetzen and/or Damberg to
include the limitations of Fletcher, and thus each have failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the rejection of
claims 90 et al. ....
Reply Br. 4.
Appellants have waived such arguments because they are untimely,
and Appellants have not demonstrated any "good cause" for the belated
presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 90, and corresponding dependent
claims, which Appellants do not separately argue.
Appellants argue independent claims 103-105 are patentable for
similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 90. See App. Br. 16-
17. Therefore, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 90,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 103-105.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 90-105.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7