Ex Parte Van Dalfsen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2003

08843978 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte AGE J. VAN DALFSEN
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-8.
The invention is pertains to cathode ray tubes. More particularly, a spot position
indication signal in a cathode ray tube display is generated. The invention seeks to
generate a spot position indication signal which is independent of the amplitude and
frequency of a vertical deflection.
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
2
Representative independent claim 7 is reproduced as follows:
7. A cathode ray tube display apparatus in which displays are realized
by line-by-line scanning of a display screen of a cathode ray tube by an
electron beam spot, the cathode ray display apparatus comprising:
a deflection circuit receiving a horizontal or a vertical position signal
for generating a deflection current for deflecting the electron beam spot in
a first direction, wherein the deflection current has a shape for obtaining
an approximate linear scan on the display screen in said first direction;
and
a circuit for generating a spot position indication signal for
indicating a position of said spot on the display screen, characterized in
that the circuit for generating a spot position indication signal comprises:
means for generating, in a certain scan period, a position
information related to the deflection current;
means for measuring a first instant as an instant at which
the position information has a first value;
means for measuring a second instant as an instant at which
the position information has a second value; and
means for calculating, in a later scan period, the spot position
indication signal as a linear function in time whereby, in a steady state
situation, the spot position indication signal has predetermined position
indication values at instants in this later scan period corresponding to the
first and the second instants, respectively, and the spot position indication
signal is independent of a width of the scan or the number of scanning
lines.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hintze 4,499,457 Feb. 12, 1985
Kii 5,016,095 May 14, 1991
Kawashima 5,463,427 Oct. 31, 1995
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 5,504,496 Apr. 02, 1996
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
3
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner offers Kii, Hintze and Tanaka with regard to claims 1, 6 and 7, adding
Kawashima with regard to claims 2-5 and 8.
Reference is made to the brief, the answer and the final rejection for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v, John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art
or to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason much
stem from some teachings, suggestions or implications in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc. , 776
F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017
(1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
4
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential part of
complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden
is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
In the instant case, the examiner points to Figures 5, 6, 12 and 13 of Kii for a
disclosure of the claimed cathode ray tube, deflection circuit and circuit for generating a
spot indication signal, the examiner finding that Kii’s counter 8 corresponds to the
claimed circuit for generating a spot position indication signal because the counter 8
provides an address that corresponds to a RAM memory location of the stored
correction waveform data for the adjustment points in the vicinity of the image screen.
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
5
The examiner points to column 8, lines 24-64, column 9, line 66 through column 10, line
13, for support for a means for calculating the spot position correction signal as a linear
function in time that has predetermined position indication values at instants
corresponding to a first and second instant. The examiner further considers that the
claimed feature of the spot position indication signal being independent of a width of the
scan or the number of scanning lines is met by Kii, at column 9, line 66 through column
10, line 13, where Kii teaches that addresses (i.e., the spot position indication signal)
are called out for reading the store adjustment and arranged in a 9 x9 data map format
which is scanned in both the x and y directions.
The examiner recognizes that Kii does not teach or suggest the generation of
position information related to the deflection current, the measurement of first and
second instances as instants at which the position information has first and second
values, respectively, or the calculation of the spot position indication signal wherein
such signal has predetermined position indication values at instants in a later scan
period corresponding to the first and the second instants.
The examiner turns to Tanaka for a teaching of an improved interpolation
technique which determines a correction value of the designated point by use of a
linear relation corresponding to reference points, at column 3, lines 34-66, and to Hintze
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
6
for a teaching of a resistive element provided between the deflection coils for providing
an indication of deflection current to determine displacement.
The examiner then takes these teachings and alleges that since Kii uses stored
correction waveforms of reference lines in the determination of a correction value of a
line therebetween, and since Tanaka teaches that fewer reference values are needed
when specific reference points of known correction values are used in the calculation of
the correction value for the designated point, it would have been obvious to employ
Tanaka’s interpolation method with Kii’s invention for a more efficient method of
interpolation [see final rejection-page 4].
Moreover, the examiner considers it obvious to have realized the claimed means
for generating position information related to the deflection current with the system of
Kii and Tanaka “so the exact displacement on a screen is known in determining where
scan raster is in relation to the reference points and the designated point” [final
rejection- page 5].
Further, the examiner alleges that it would have been obvious “to recognize the
claimed means for measuring a first moment in time at which the position information
has a first value and the claimed means for measuring a second moment in time at
which the position information has a second value with the system of Kii, Tanaka, and
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
7
Hintze to determine the exact locations of the reference points” [final rejection-page 5].
Still further, the examiner takes Official notice “that a raster scanning of a
cathode tube under consistent timing will repetitively hit the same point at the same
moment of time each scan” [final rejection-page 6] and concludes that
[a]fter the accurate timing associated with the reference points is
determined it would be [sic, have been] obvious to base further
calculations of the present beam position on the present timing as
it corresponds to the timing of the reference timing because the
continual sampling of the spot positions deflection current would
waste resources by requiring a continual comparisons between
sampling of the deflection currents and the reference deflection
currents. The timing of the television is conventionally taken by
other systems in the display system, such as for horizontal and
vertical timing, and it would be easier to just use that timing system
and compare a measured timing to the reference timing values
rather that [sic, than] have to have a current sampling for each spot
position, thus the current sampling would only have to be done once
for each reference point, additionally means for timing are less
complicated then [sic, than] accurate current sampling means
[final rejection-page 6].
The examiner states that “if the correction values are based on position of the
spot on the screen and the spot on the screen is a function of time, and there is a linear
relationship between correction values and the spot on the screen, then there would be
a linear relationship between the timing of the spot and the correction values” [final
rejection-pages 6-7] and, therefore, “it would have been obvious...to realize the claimed
means for calculating the spot position indication signal has predetermined position
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
8
indication values at instants in a later scan period corresponding to the first and the
second instants with the system of Kii, Tanaka, and Hintze because by using the later
scan period instants of the beam spot in comparison to the instants of the reference
positions an accurate correction value can be calculated without the need of sampling
the deflection current every single beam spot position” [final rejection-page 7].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as, in our
view, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
For all the many words and twists and turns used by the examiner to explain how
the instant claimed subject matter is deemed obvious over the combinations of
references, and the reliance on Official notice, it appears to us that the examiner’s
rationale is really based on hindsight.
Each of the claims on appeal requires the limitation that the “spot position
indication signal is independent of a width of the scan or the number of scanning lines.”
The examiner’s rationale is unconvincing as to where any one of the applied references
discloses or suggests that a spot position indication signal is “independent” of a width of
the scan or the number of scanning lines. It appears that the examiner relies on Kii for
this teaching or suggestion but it is clear that Kii does not, in fact, teach this limitation.
As appellant points out, at pages 4-6 of the brief, Kii generates a correction
waveform for digital convergence or digital focusing wherein a correction waveform is
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
9
generated from the position information indicating the horizontal and vertical position on
the screen. As indicated by appellant, and in which we concur, the horizontal and
vertical positions on the screen are obtained from reading out the RAM 7 in
synchronization with the horizontal/vertical synchronization signal (column 6, lines
31-35). Appellant submits that in Kii’s system, not only the spot position indication
signal, but also the quadrants are locked to instants of occurrences of the synchronizing
pulses, and not to the actual position on the screen. This appears to be a reasonable
assessment and the examiner has not convinced us otherwise. If there is a clear
relationship between Kii’s spot position indication signal and the width of a scan or the
number of scanning lines, then, clearly, Kii does not suggest that the spot position
indication signal is “independent” of these things.
The examiner’s response is to note that appellant’s arguments are directed
against the references individually, rather than as a combination. We disagree. The
examiner has indicated that it is Kii which is relied on for the teaching of the spot
position indication signal being independent of the width of the scan or the number of
scanning lines (see page 3 of Paper No. 14). Accordingly, appellant correctly directs
the bulk of his argument towards showing that Kii does not, in fact, teach the
independence claimed. Moreover, appellant points out (brief-page 6) that neither
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
10
Hintze nor Tanaka provides for this deficiency. So, appellant does argue the
combination rather than individual references since, if no individual reference teaches
or suggests a claimed limitation, how can it be that the combination of these references
would magically teach or suggest the limitation?
Since an important limitation of the claims is not taught or suggested by the
applied references, the examiner has not met his burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the rejections of the
claims.
Moreover, the instant claims also specifically recite the apparatus and steps
taken in order to achieve the independence of the spot position indication signal from
the width of the scan or the number of scanning lines. That is, the measurement of first
and second instances when position information has first and second values and
calculation, in a later scan period, of the spot position indication signal as a linear
function in time, wherein the spot position indication signal has predetermined position
indication values in this later scan period, results in the spot position indication signal
being independent of a width of the scan or the number of scanning lines.
While the examiner agrees that Kii does not disclose these limitations regarding
the measurement of first and second instances and calculating the spot position
indication signal wherein the means has predetermined position indication values at
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
11
instants in a later scan period corresponding to the first and second instants, the
examiner relies on Tanaka for an interpolation method which is somehow to be
employed by Kii. The examiner has not convinced us of any reason, other than
hindsight, for the artisan to have turned to Tanaka for any modifications to be made in
Kii. First, since Kii does not appear to have any need for an interpolation method, the
artisan would not be looking for such a technique. Moreover, as pointed out by
appellant, at page 6 of the brief, since Tanaka is directed to a laser display device,
which is not subject to the same problems as the raster scan of a cathode ray tube,
there would have been no reason for the artisan to have considered Tanaka when
seeking any modification to the Kii system. As stated by appellant, at page 6 of the
brief, Tanaka is a vector scan system in which the coordinates of the signal samples
are already known so “there is no need for the generation of a spot position indication
signal.” Hintze is of no help in this regard. Accordingly, there would have been no
reason to combine Tanaka with Kii.
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
12
For at least the reasons set forth supra, the examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness regarding the instant claimed subject matter.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
13
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510