Ex Parte Tsuchihashi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

12050275 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MORIYUKI TSUCHIHASHI
____________________

Appeal 2012-010583
Application 12/050,275
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010583
Application 12/050,275

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to computer display driving system. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for driving a computer system display at a
first number of pixel gradations where the display supports a
second number of gradations lower than the first number, the
apparatus comprising:

pattern generating means for generating a Frame Rate
Control (FRC) pattern by allocating, for each pixel, an A-th
gradation and a B-th gradation, where A and B are sequential
integers equal to or greater than zero and contained within the
second number; and

shifting means for shifting adjacent lines in different
directions reverse to each other, the lines being lines of the FRC
pattern generated by the pattern generating means.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamano US 2003/0193464 Al Oct. 16, 2003
Mano US 6,072,451 June 6, 2000
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) (Fig. 25(a-e), Spec. 1, ll. 8-
22; 3, ll. 7-15)

Appeal 2012-010583
Application 12/050,275

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–3, 5–14, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Yamano.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Yamano as applied to claims 3 and 14
above, and further in view of Mano.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the individual on-off state elements (the
circled elements 1 through 6) are shifted alternatively from left to right or
right to left in the same line in different successive frames. (App. Br. 8).
Appellant further contends:
with respect to driving a computer system display at a first
number of pixel gradations (for example, 256) where the
display supports a lower number of gradations (for example,
64). The discussion of the prior art in applicant's specification,
cited as AAPA by the Examiner, describes how this situation
may cause dynamic pattern display errors in the computer
screen display, such as oblique stripe patterns and
predetermined stripe patterns (Fig. 11(a)) (page 15 lines 15-27).
Further, the AAPA prior art techniques generally display the
error patterns in successive image frames by shifting the error
patterns to the right by one line in each successive frame,
resulting in the fixed error pattern flowing and generating a
wave stripe in a display to a viewer (Figure 11(d); page 15 lines
27-31).

(App. Br. 7–8).
Appeal 2012-010583
Application 12/050,275

4
Appellant contends:
As none of the Figures of the thirteen different embodiments
provided by Yamano teach shifting adjacent lines of a
generated FRC pattern in different directions reverse to each
other as is specifically claimed, the Examiner has failed to meet
his burden in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
independent claims 1, 7 and 12 over AAPA in view of Yamano.

(App. Br. 9).
The Examiner maintains that the state of the prior art as taught by
Yamano in the various figures 13–17 and figures 2, 4–6, teaches a variable
shift with respect to adjacent lines. (Ans. 13–14). The Examiner concludes:
Because Yamano teaches a variable shifting not all the patterns
produced have this right, left, right shifting (See second pattern
produced in figure 6). The Independents claims do not
specifically limit the shifting method and therefore broadly
reads on the example explained by Yamano's in which a
variable shifting of FRC is generated.

(Ans. 13–14). While we agree with the Examiner that the prior art has
recognized a similar problem, the Yamano reference teaches multiple
embodiments and multiple alternatives to address the problem. We find the
Examiner is picking and choosing between different alternative solutions
for shifting “alternatively” between frames in the various embodiments in an
attempt to reconstruct the general claimed invention, but the Examiner has
not shown the admitted prior art and the Yamano reference to teach and
fairly suggest the specific recited limitation as claimed with respect to the
“shifting means for shifting adjacent lines in different directions” as this
limitation would be interpreted in light of the disclosed structure, acts, or
materials. Therefore, we find the Examiner has not made sufficient factual
determinations to support the factual findings used in the conclusion of
Appeal 2012-010583
Application 12/050,275

5
obviousness of independent claim 1 and 12. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 and their respective
dependent claims 2, 3, 5–14, and 16–20.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 15, the Examiner has further
relied upon the Mano reference to reject these claims. The Examiner has not
identified how the Mano reference remedies the above-noted deficiencies.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 15.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 5–14, and 16–20 based
upon obviousness and the Examiner erred in claims 4 and 15 based upon
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1–3, 5–14, and 16–20 is reversed, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 4 and 15 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc