Ex Parte Shi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201612459424 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/459,424 0613012009 104333 7590 05/25/2016 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. Lauren W. Burke c/o CPA Global 900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jun Shi 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. P29576 5221 EXAMINER RABINDRANATH, ROY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN SHI, AKIHIRO TAKAGI, ROBERT J. BRENNAN, SEH W. KW A, and Y ANLI S. ZHANG Appeal2015-000401 Application 12/459,424 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14--15, and 19-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Intel Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 25, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed September 30, 2014, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 31, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed September 12, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed June 30, 2009, "Spec.") for their respective details. Appeal2015-000401 Application 12/459,424 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method and apparatus for determining an area of interest on a display screen and dimming the remaining areas. See Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method comprising: determining one or more areas of interest to a user of a display screen in response to a size and a location of one or more windows opened by the user; dimming portions of the display screen other than the one or more areas of interest by dimming a backlight segment of the display screen to reduce power consumption of the display screen; and not performing frame updates in areas outside the area of interest. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Chandley et al. ("Chandley") Terasaka Glen US 2006/0101293 Al US 2006/0262077 Al US 2008/0055228 Al The claims stand rejected as follows: May 11, 2006 Nov. 23, 2006 Mar. 6, 2008 1. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 14--15, and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 2 Appeal2015-000401 Application 12/459,424 § 102(b) as anticipated by Glen. Final Act. 2-7. 2. Claims 3--4, 11-12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Glen and Terasaka. Final Act. 7-11. 3. Claims 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Glen and Chandley. Final Act. 11-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14--15, and 19-28 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--14. CLAIMS 1, 5, 7-9, 14--15, AND 19-25: ANTICIPATION BY GLEN Appellants note that independent Claims 1, 9, and 15 generally recite, inter alia, "diming portions of the display screen other than the one or more areas of interest by dimming a backlight segment of the display screen to reduce power consumption of the display screen; and not performing frame updates in areas outside the area of interest" and specifically contend that Glen fails to disclose "not performing frame updates in areas outside the area of interest," as claimed. App. Br. 7-10. The Examiner finds Glen discloses "display images[, including images outside the area of interest,] that are static for more than 1 frame [and] do not require updating." Final Act. 3 (citing Glen i-f 29; Fig. 3, Step 312). The Examiner finds this disclosure reads on the claimed "not performing frame updates in areas outside the area of interest." Final Act. 3. Appellants contend Glen is silent with regard to not performing frame 3 Appeal2015-000401 Application 12/459,424 updates in areas outside an area of interest. Appellants argue Glen merely states that "the display image is provided to the display in accordance with known techniques" and that the processing described in Glen is preferably "performed on the output of an image frame buffer." App. Br. 8 (citing Glen i-f 28). Appellants argue that Glen discloses that the brightness of portions of a display image may be differentially increased or decreased, but that once the brightness level is set, the entire display image is provided to the display "in accordance with known techniques." Id. The Examiner finds the claim recitations "frame updates" and "not performing frame updates" are not defined. Ans. 14. Thus, the Examiner finds that using "the broadest reasonable interpretation [of these recitations,] any prior art that does not perform an updates for an entire frame may read on the claim limitation." Id. Because the Examiner finds Glen discloses where an image is static for more than one frame, the entire frame, "including regions outside the area of interest," is not updated, the Examiner concludes that Glen reads on the claims. Id. Appellants argue the claimed device can be operated such that frame updates do not occur in areas outside the area of interest. Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 12). We find the Specification discloses that "an area of interest of a display panel can be determined and/or defined, and frame update occurs only in that area of the display panel and not in other areas (for example, if the other areas are dimmed, and/or remain the same without any additional updating)." Spec. i-f 12. We are not aware of a finding by the Examiner that Glen discloses where frame updates may occur in only a portion of a display. Rather, the Examiner finds that Glen discloses where an image is static, the entire image is not updated. See Ans. 14. 4 Appeal2015-000401 Application 12/459,424 Appellants argue Glen explicitly states that when the display image remains static for longer than one or more full image update periods, "processing continues at block 310 as previously described." Reply Br. 3 (citing Glen i-f 29). According to Appellants, at block 310, "the resulting image is provided to the display." Id. (citing Glen i-f 26). Appellants contend that, contrary to the Examiner's reading, Glen discloses new data is transmitted to the display when the display image remains static for longer than one or more full image update periods. Reply Br. 3. Therefore, according to Appellants, Glen does not teach that frame updates do not occur if the display image has not changed. Id. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner cites Glen as disclosing that display images, including images outside the area of interest, that are static for more than one frame do not require updating. Final Act. 3 (citing Glen i-f 29; Fig. 3, Step 312). We disagree. Glen provides a processed display image to a display at Step 310 and proceeds to Step 312. Glen, Fig. 3. At Step 312 where the display contents or intensities have not been updated, the logic proceeds to Step 310 where an image is provided to the display. Id. At Step 312 where the display contents or intensities have indeed been updated, the logic updates the display image and ultimately proceeds to Step 310 where an image is again provided to the display. Id. We find no disclosure in Glen suggesting that frames are not continually provided to the display. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 14--15, and 19-25 as anticipated by Glen. 5 Appeal2015-000401 Application 12/459,424 CLAIMS 3--4, 11-12, AND 17: OBVIOUSNESS OVER GLEN AND TERASAKA The Examiner applies Glen as discussed above for Claim 1 and does not apply Terasaka to teach the frame update limitations. See Final Act. 7- 11. For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 3--4, 11-12, and 17. CLAIMS 26-28: OBVIOUSNESS OVER GLEN AND CHANDLEY The Examiner applies Glen as discussed above for Claim 1, but does not apply Chandley to teach the frame update limitations. See Final Act. 11- 13. For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 26-28. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 14--15, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED. The rejection of Claims 3--4, 11-12, 17, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation