Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12314389 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/314,389 12/09/2008
30827 7590 07/01/2016
Dentons US LLP
1900 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Byung-Hwee Park
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.
8733.2100.00 6768
EXAMINER
YANG, KWANG-SU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
mlaip@dentons.com
paul.fugitt@dentons.com
mlapto@mckennalong.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYUNG-HWEE PARK
and SEUNG-KYU KIM
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-17, and 19.2 Appeal Br. 4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real-party-in-interest is LG Display Co., Ltd.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 3, 10, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim. Ans. 14.
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Illustrative Claim
Appellants' disclosure relates to an organic electroluminescent display
device, and a method of driving the same. Spec. i-f 2. More particularly, the
device and method have "improve[ d] distinction in displaying a dark image
and reduce[d] power consumption in displaying a bright image." Id. i-f 9.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. An organic electroluminescent display device,
compnsmg:
a gray level extractor that extracts gray levels of frame data
signals for a frame image;
an image type determiner that determines a type of the
frame image using a distribution of the gray levels of the frame
data signals, the type of the frame image being one of a
low-gray-level type, a medium-gray-level type and a
high-gray-level type;
a gamma reference voltage generator that selects one of
first to third sets of gamma reference voltages based upon the
type of the frame image, the first to third sets of the gamma
reference voltages corresponding to the low-gray-level type, the
medium-gray-level type and the high-gray-level type,
respectively;
a data driver converting the frame data signals into frame
data voltages using the selected set of the gamma reference
voltages;
a timing controller that supplies the frame data signals to
the data driver; and
a display area including pixels having an organic light
emitting diode that display the frame image,
wherein a maximum luminance of a first gamma curve of
the first set of the gamma reference voltages is greater than a
2
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389
maximum luminance of a third gamma curve of the third set of
the gamma reference voltages, and
wherein each of the first gamma curve and the third
gamma curve includes red, green and blue colors.
References Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references. Ans. 3-14.
Reference PatenttPublicanon•••Nor
Shih et al. ("Shih") US 2006/0214895 Al Sept. 28, 2006
Jun et al. ("Jun ") US 2006/0244696 Al Nov. 2, 2006
Horiuchi et al. US 7,375,711 B2 May 20, 2008
("Horiuchi")
Kim et al. ("Kim") US 2008/0278430 Al Nov. 13, 2008
Oh et al. ("Oh") US 7 ,782,281 B2
Rejections
Aug. 24, 2010
(filed Dec. 28,
2004)
The following rejections are before us on appeal. Appeal Br. 8-14.
I ~l~J~S,. n A 1 1 l~~!iTsn ~ " 1 A"/ ' I ~~,~~~l1~es 1 TT • 1 •
1, L, "+, :.J, ?5, 'J, 11, .J:.J u.~.L. s lV.J~aJ un, 1\.1m, ana 11onucm
12, 14--17, 19
6 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Oh, Kim, Horiuchi, and
Shih
7, 13 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Oh, Kim, Horiuchi, and
Jung
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims based
on the grounds of rejection set forth above.
3
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination
of Oh, Kim, and Horiuchi does not teach or suggest
wherein a maximum luminance of a first gamma curve of the first
set of the gamma reference voltages is greater than a maximum
luminance of a third gamma curve of the third set of the gamma
reference voltages, and wherein each of the first gamma curve
and the third gamma curve includes red, green and blue colors
as recited in claim 1 (the "disputed claim feature"). Appeal Br. 8-11;
Reply Br. 2--4.
According to Appellants, "the Examiner admits that 'Oh and Kim do
not teach'" the disputed claim feature, among others. Appeal Br. 9 (citing
Final Action 4); Reply Br. 2. The Examiner relies on Horiuchi, in
combination with Oh and Kim, as teaching the disputed claim feature.
Ans. 8-9. Appellants assert that "Horiuchi is entirely silent regarding any
teaching or suggestion concerning" the disputed claim feature. Appeal
Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, Horiuchi instead teaches only
a data average value operation unit 33 that calculates an average
value of brightness for one-frame-length and judges a mode to
which the average value belongs after obtaining the average
value where a driver input data converter receives grayscale data
HD for one line from frame memory and converts the grayscale
data HD for one line based on the mode signal from the grayscale
data average.
Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Horiuchi, 8:15-22, 8:52-57); Reply Br. 3--4.
As found by the Examiner, Kim teaches using adjusted gamma curves
for dark, standard, or bright images, and one of skill in the art would utilize
the adjusted gamma curves of Kim in the driving method of Oh "because the
dynamic contrast is improved by selecting an appropriate gamma curve
depending on the brightness of the image." Ans. 8; Kim i-f 34, Figs. 3A, 3B,
4. As described in Kim, the adjusted gamma curves allow for adjustment of
4
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389
the brightness of the image if the image is brighter or darker. Kim if 34;
Ans. 8. However, according to the Examiner, the combination of Oh and
Kim is deficient because it does not teach that the maximum luminance of
such an adjusted gamma curve corresponding to the dark image type (i.e.,
the "first gamma curve") is greater than the maximum luminance of an
adjusted gamma curve corresponding to the bright image type (i.e., the
"third gamma curve"). Ans. 8.
The Examiner addresses the noted deficiency by applying Horiuchi
for teaching that the maximum of a characteristic line ML 1, which
corresponds to a very dark state (i.e., low grayscale data average value), is
greater than the maximum of a characteristic line ML4, which corresponds
to a very bright state (i.e., high grayscale data average value). Ans. 9, 16-
17; Horiuchi, 8:15-30, 9:11-33, Fig. 5. In Horiuchi, grayscale dataHD is
converted to brightness-adjusted grayscale data DD, using the appropriate
characteristic line ML1-ML4. Horiuchi, 5:54--58, 9:11-33, Fig. 5; Ans. 9,
16-17. The brightness-adjusted grayscale data DD is then supplied to pixel
circuits 20 as data voltages for display. Horiuchi, 9:34--50. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner in finding Horiuchi teaches or suggests the disputed
feature of claim 1.
Both Kim and Horiuchi teach adjusting the brightness of the display
based on the average grayscale level of the image. Kim if 34, Figs. 3A, 3B,
4; Horiuchi, 8: 15-30, 9: 11-33, Fig. 5; Ans. 8-9, 16-17. According to the
Examiner,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have used different
characteristic lines as taught by Horiuchi into a driving method
of a display device of Oh as modified by Kim because the device
5
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389
with using the characteristic lines can prevent a large current
from flowing when switching frames in a brightness control.
Ans. 9; see id. at 16-17; Horiuchi, 9:53---67.
Appellants contend the Examiner has not addressed why one of skill
in the art would combine the cited references. Appeal Br. 8, 11. As
discussed above, however, the Examiner has provided reasons both for
modifying Oh in view of Kim, as well as for modifying this combination in
further view of Horiuchi. Ans. 8-9, 16-17. Thus, contrary to Appellants'
contention, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with sufficient
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
For the reasons discussed, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1
based on the combination of Oh, Kim, and Horiuchi. Regarding
independent claims 8 and 14,3 Appellants rely on the arguments made with
respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12,
15-17, 19 were not separately or substantively argued. Appeal Br. 12-13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9,
11, 12, 14--17, 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based on
the combination of Oh, Kim, Horiuchi, and Shih, and the rejection of claims
7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), based on the combination of Oh, Kim,
Horiuchi, and Jung, Appellants rely only on the arguments set forth with
respect to the combination of Oh, Kim, and Horiuchi, which we do not find
persuasive for the reasons discussed above. See Appeal Br. 13.
3 We note claim 14 does not include proper antecedent basis for the phrase
"each of the first gamma curve and the third gamma curve" recited therein.
6
Appeal2015-002514
Application 12/314,389
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6, 7, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-17, and 19 is
affirmed.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7