Ex Parte Pourbigharaz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2018

13326065 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/326,065 12/14/2011
15150 7590 05/18/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fariborz Pourbigharaz
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.
1010-788US01/l 10735 1214
EXAMINER
GE, JIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2018 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F ARIBORZ POURBIGHARAZ,
CARL KAZUMI MIZUY ABU, KHOSRO M. RABII,
JOHN CHI KIT WONG, GARY ARTHUR CIAMBELLA,
CHIA-YUAN TENG, and TAUSEEF KAZI
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1--45, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns "techniques for
reducing power consumption of a display device." Spec. i-f 1. 2 The
Specification explains that when a display device determines that an image
has become static, the display device may: (1) "read a current frame of
image data"; (2) "modify the current frame of image data to generate a
modified frame of image data with a reduced size"; (3) "store the modified
image data in memory"; and ( 4) "read the modified image data from
memory to present the static image, which may reduce power consumption
of the display device." Abstract; see Spec. i-fi-1 3-7.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method comprising:
operating a display device in a standard mode to display
images, wherein the standard mode comprises reading one or
more frames of image data from a memory device to present the
images;
comparing a current frame of image data to at least one
previous frame of image data;
determining that the current frame of image data
comprises a static image based on the comparison;
responsive to determining that the current frame of image
data comprises a static image, modifying the current frame of
image data to generate a modified frame of image data;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed December 14, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed January 5, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
April 18, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 31, 2017;
and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed July 21, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
storing the modified frame of image data in the memory
device; and
operating the display device in a static image mode,
wherein the static image mode comprises reading the modified
frame of image data from the memory device to present the
static image.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
Hirabayashi US 6,256,413 Bl July 3, 2001
Adachi et al. ("Adachi") US 2002/0163523 Al Nov. 7, 2002
Munsil et al. ("Munsil") US 2005/0063586 Al Mar. 24, 2005
Lai et al. ("Lai") US 2008/0100636 Al May 1, 2008
Ageishi et al. ("Ageishi") US 7 ,502,022 B2 Mar. 10, 2009
Han et al. ("Han") US 2011/0078536 Al Mar. 31, 2011
The Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 1-8, 12-19, 23-30, 34--41, and 45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lai, Han, and Adachi. Final
Act. 9--46.
Claims 9, 20, 31, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lai, Han, Adachi, and Munsil. Final Act. 46--48.
Claims 10, 21, 32, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lai, Han, Adachi, Munsil, and Hirabayashi. Final
Act. 48-50.
Claims 11, 22, 33, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lai, Han, Adachi, Munsil, Hirabayashi, and Ageishi.
Final Act. 50-52.
3
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellants' arguments
that the Examiner erred. Except as noted below, we disagree with
Appellants' assertions regarding Examiner error and adopt the Examiner's
findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action and Answer. We adopt the
Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action and Answer.
We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and
arguments.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1--8, 12-19, 23-30, 34-41, and 45
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because:
( 1) both Lai and Han "provide[] a technique for triggering the display of a
static image"; and (2) "a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified the Lai system" according to Han "because Lai already provides a
mechanism" for determining "when to hold an image on the screen" and
"when an image is static." App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 6. Appellants contend
that "Lai determines that an image is static in response to there being no
graphics or video commands remaining to be processed by the graphics
engine" and "Han's mere description of an alternate method of determining
when to [sic] an image is static is not sufficient to render the claims prima
facie obvious." Reply Br. 6; see App. Br. 9-11 (citing Lai i-fi-165---66, 69-70;
Han i-fi-f 12, 14--15).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Han discloses an additional-not alternate-method that
would "help reduce" energy consumption when applied to Lai. Final Act. 5,
14; Ans. 5.
4
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
More specifically, Lai discloses a computer system including a
graphics control hub, a memory device, and a display device. Lai i-fi-130,
34--36, 44, Figs. 2--4. Lai explains that the graphics control hub may
"operate in a power-saving mode" during an idle state of the computer
system and may "enter or leave the power-save mode by directly detecting
an idle state of the computer system and/or by receiving a signal from
another computer system component that indicates that the computer system
is idle." Id. i-fi-144, 49. Determining that no graphics or video commands
remain for processing may trigger a power-save mode. Id. i-fi-1 44, 51, 59, 65.
But other events, such as "receiving a signal from another" component, may
also trigger a power-save mode. Id. i-fi-1 49, 65, 76. Thus, Lai instructs that
"after detecting the computer is idle and/or no graphics/video commands are
being processed for a short period of time, power-save mode is begun" and
frame data is read from a memory device. Id. i176. Accordingly, Han's
disclosure concerning checking consecutive frames supplied to a display
device to determine a static image, i.e., another idle state of the computer
system, would "help reduce" the computer system's energy consumption
when applied to Lai. Final Act. 5, 14; Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that the "combination of Lai and Han would not
actually result in a reduction of energy consumption by image display
devices" and instead "would consume more energy than the unmodified
system" due to "the additional operation of determining whether the next
image to be displayed is the same as the currently displayed image." App.
Br. 1 O; see Reply Br. 7. Appellants' contention constitutes attorney
argument. Attorney argument "cannot take the place of evidence." In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). In addition, Appellants'
5
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
contention conflicts with Han's disclosure because Han explains that
checking consecutive frames supplied to a display device to determine a
static image-the alleged "additional operation"-reduces power
consumption when used to trigger a self-refresh mode. Han i-fi-12, 12, 15, 19,
35-38, 52, Fig. 1.
Because Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 12, 23, AND 34
AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2-8, 13-19, 24--30, 35--41, AND 45
For each of independent claims 12, 23, and 34, Appellants quote the
claim in its entirety and then assert that the references "fail[] to disclose or
suggest the features" recited in the claim. App. Br. 12-14. The applicable
rules "require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art." In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Hence, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 12, 23,
and 34 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 2-8 and 45 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
claims 13-19 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12; claims 24--30
depend directly or indirectly from claim 23; and claims 35--41 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 34. Appellants do not argue patentability
separately for these dependent claims. See App. Br. 6-14; Reply Br. 5-7.
Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the
same reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 9, 20, 31, and 42
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 (which indirectly depends from
claim 1) and requires that "reducing the number of bits that represent the
static image comprises converting the current frame from red green blue
(RGB) color space to luminance and chrominance components." App.
Br. 27 (Claims App.). Claims 20, 31, and 42 include limitations similar in
scope to claim 9' s limitation.
Appellants note the Examiner determined "that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have considered it obvious to combine Munsil with
Lai, Han, and Adachi 'to display the image data in a special display device
with luminance and chrominance input such as TV."' App. Br. 14--15
(quoting Final Act. 47). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9 because:
the conversion of the current frame from RGB color space to
luminance and chrominance components recited by claim 9 is
performed "responsive to determining that the current frame of
image data comprises a static image." As such, while
displaying "image data in a special display device with
luminance and chrominance input such as TV" may motivate a
person of ordinary skill in the art to always convert from RGB
into luminance and chrominance, it would not motivate a
person of ordinary skill in the art to convert a current frame
from RGB color space to luminance and chrominance
components "responsive to determining that the current frame
of image data comprises a static image."
App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds that Munsil discloses "transform[ing] the RGB
image information to luma and chroma color space (Y'PbPr 4:4:4 image
information) and then transform[ing] Y'PbPr 4:4:4 image information
(where there is a chroma sample for every luma sample) into Y'PbPr 4:2:2 or
7
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
4:2:0 image information," thus "compress[ing] the image data in luma and
chroma color space." Final Act. 46-47 (citing Munsil i-f 103); Ans. 12
(citing Munsil i-f 103).
Based on the record before us, however, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not explained adequately how the cited portions of
Munsil teach or suggest a conversion according to claim 9 that occurs
responsive to determining a static image to reduce the number of bits
representing the static image. Munsil discloses an image-processing
pipeline that converts input image data from Y'PbPr to RGB for processing,
e.g., in linear space, and then converts the resulting RGB to Y'PbPr to
produce output image data. Munsil i-fi-192-103, Fig. 1. Stated differently,
the cited portions of the combination of references fail to teach a nexus (i.e.,
the "responsive to" claim 9 limitation) between: (1) a condition precedent of
determining a static image to reduce the number of bits representing the
static image; and (2) a subsequent result of a conversion. Munsil's
processing occurs regardless whether the image data represents a static
image or a dynamic image. Id. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a)
rejection of claims 9, 20, 31, and 42.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 10, 11, 21, 22, 32, 33, 43, and 44
Claims 10 and 11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 9;
claims 21 and 22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 20; claims 32
and 33 depend directly or indirectly from claim 31; and claims 43 and 44
depend directly or indirectly from claim 42. On this record, the Examiner
has not shown how the additionally cited references-Hirabayashi and
Ageishi---overcome the deficiency in Munsil for claims 9, 20, 31, and 42.
8
Appeal2017-010107
Application 13/326,065
Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 10, 11, 21, 22, 32,
33, 43, and 44.
Because these determinations resolve the appeal with respect to
claims 1--45, we need not address Appellants' other arguments regarding
Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a
decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 12-19, 23-
30, 34--41, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-11, 20-22, 31-
33, and 42--44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9