Ex parte VAN NES

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 1998

07928883 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 11, 1992. According1
to appellant, the application is a continuation of Application
07/608,594, filed October 29, 1990, abandoned; which is a con-
tinuation of Application 07/312,319, filed February 16, 1989,
abandoned; which is a continuation of Application 07/043,520,
filed April 28, 1987, abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 55
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FLORIS L. VAN NES
_____________
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,8831
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before MARTIN, FLEMING and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
2
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 40, 41 and 61-77. Claims 1-39, 42-56, and 58-60 have
been canceled by applicant and claim 57 stands allowed by the
Examiner.
The invention is directed to a character display unit
having a picture memory for storing characters in a multi-
color frame and a color transforming mechanism for “cross-
color mapping” at least part of the characters. Color changes
of certain charac- ters may be made manually or automatically,
based on the type or position of certain selected characters,
not based on content. The color transformations are intended
to improve the overall legibility of a displayed page.
Figure 1 diagrammatically represents the operation of the
claimed color transformation apparatus. Specifically, circle
20 represents the color transforming mechanism with alterna-
tive input color and character signals on arrows 22 and 24 and
cor- responding transformed output color and character signals
on arrows 26 and 28, respectively (page 4, lines 36-37).
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
3
On arrow 22, each input element or character has an
associated color indicator for a specific predetermined color:
red (R), green (G) and/or blue (B) (page 5, lines 2-5).
Arrow 24 shows an alternative input where the
characters/supporting elements are subdivided into groups with
each group having color indicators, K , K , K , . . . , which1 2 3
are not assigned to a specific color (page 5, lines 10-16).
Arrow 26 shows one output option where each specifically
assigned input color indicator is converted into a single
specifically assigned output color indicator according to a
fixed conversion pattern (page 5, lines 17-29). Under this
output option, one or more of the input colors may be
displayed as a different output color.
Arrow 28 shows an alternative output option where each
assigned input color indicator K , is assigned an output colorj
based on character type/location (page 5, lines 30-34). The
specification is less than clear as to how these color values
are assigned except to say that they can be manually chosen by
the designer or automatically chosen according to several
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
4
tables listing color values in order of contrast on pages 6
and 7 of the specification.
Specific embodiments are shown in block diagram form in
Figs. 2 and 3. Block 30 represents a keyboard or other memory
device to supply character information signals on line 33 and
synchronizing signal information on line 31 to a picture
memory 34. In the case of Fig. 2, the picture memory is
preceded by a histogram former 32, which detects color
indicator signals. A picture memory 34 stores one or more
pages of information or a bit map. The stored information is
then transmitted to a charac- ter generator 36, which receives
information about each character or bit, including a color
code (page 10, lines 9-23). These com- ponents receive a
synchronizing signal from control unit 42 so that the
character code information can be consecutively read and
converted into pixels having a three bit color indication
(page 10, lines 32-34). The claimed apparatus can also detect
specific character categories and/or specific text configura-
tions in the output signal of the character generator by means
of a detector in the character generator which is set by
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
5
control unit 52 (page 11, lines 6-14). The output signal of
the charac- ter generator is received by the transforming
device 38, which acts on the signal according to the strategy
received from the histogram former 32 and/or control unit 54
to convert the character code color information or to leave it
unchanged (page 12, lines 15-22).
Independent claims 61 and 69, reproduced below, are
representative:
61. A character display unit, comprising:
a picture memory for storing all characters
displayable in a multi-color frame together with
color code information defining a plurality of
respective hues,
color transforming means having an input
connected to the picture memory for cross-color
mapping at least part of said characters according
to a color look-up table, and
display means for displaying said frame and
having an input connected to the color transforming
means, wherein
said color transforming means are controllable
in a first and in a second state, such that
i) in said first state said color
transforming means are operative for mapping two of
said respective hues on a single destination hue in
said multi-color frame, and
ii) in said second state said color
transforming means are operative for mapping two of
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
6
said respective hues on at least two respective
destination hues in said multi-color frame.
69. A character display unit, comprising:
a picture memory for storing all characters
displayable in a multi-color frame;
color transforming means having an input
connected to said picture memory for cross-color
mapping at least part of said characters, and
display means for displaying said frame and
having an input connected to said color transforming
means, wherein
said color transforming means are
controllable in a first and second state, and
operative for
i) in said first state, mapping at least
a first selection of said stored characters on a
first destination hue and a second selection of said
stored characters on a second destination hue as
based on content and/or supporting elements of said
first and second selections, respectively, and in
[sic]
ii) in said second state, mapping all
characters of said first and second selections on a
single destination hue.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Staar 4,016,365 Apr. 5, 1977
Iwai et al. (Iwai) 4,710,806 Dec. 1, 1987
(filed June 24, 1986)
Havel 4,734,619 Mar. 29, 1988
(filed July 7, 1986)
Nopp et al. (Nopp) 1,200,631 Feb. 11, 1986
(Canadian patent)
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
7
Practiword 1.05, 5 PC Magazine, no. 2, 159-61, 173-74 (Jan.
28, 1986)
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to provide an adequate written
description of the invention as now claimed because it does
not provide support for the claimed “color look-up table.”
Claims 40, 41, 61-68 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth in the
objection to
the specification. Claims 40, 41, 62-68 and 75 stand rejected
as being dependent on a rejected base claim (claim 61).
Additionally, the following claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art: (1) claims 40, 41, 61,
64-66, 68, 69 and 76-77 over Nopp in view of Havel; (2) claims
62, 63, 67 and 73 over Nopp in view of Havel, as applied to
claims 61 or 69, and further in view of Iwai; (3) claims 70-72
and 74-75 over Nopp in view of Havel, as applied to claim 61
or 69 above, and further in view of PC Magazine or Staar.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
8
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Applicant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the entire record including
Applicant’s Brief and the Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the
rejection of claims 40, 41, 61-68 and 75 for lack of written
description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We also
sustain the following rejections because we conclude that
the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
(1) claims 40, 41, 61, 64-66, 68, 69 and 76-77 over Nopp in
view of Havel; (2) claims 62, 63, 67 and 73 over Nopp in view
of Havel and further in view of Iwai; (3) claims 70-72 and 74-
75 over Nopp in view of Havel and further in view of PC
Magazine or Staar.
At the outset, we note that Appellant states on page 3 of
his brief that the claims are divided into two groups which
stand or fall together: (1) claims 40, 41, 61-68 and 75; and
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
9
(2) claims 69-74, 76 and 77. All claims in group 1 depend
directly from independent claim 61. All claims in group 2
depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 69.
Within each group, the individual claims have not been argued
separately with any reasonable degree of specificity. Accord-
ingly, the claims of group 1 will be considered to stand or
fall together with claim 61 and the claims of group 2 will be
considered to stand or fall together with claim 69. See,
e.g., In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
REJECTION UNDER § 112, ¶ 1
The written description requirement requires that an
applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or
she was in
possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991)(quoted in Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354, 47 USPQ2d
1128, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). When a claimed limitation is
not expressly described and inherency is relied on to support
that limitation, an applicant is required to establish that
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
10
the necessary and only reasonable construction to be given the
disclosure by one skilled in the art is one which will lend
clear support for the limita- tion in question. Hyatt, 146
F.3d at 1354-55, 47 USPQ2d at 1132 (reconciling various verbal
expressions of the written descrip- tion test as requiring the
same showing for compliance with the statute); Kennecott Corp.
v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194,
1198 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1008 (1988);
Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915, 918, 175 USPQ 172, 174 (CCPA
1972).
Although a written description “does not have to describe
exactly the subject matter claimed, . . . the description must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re
Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir.
1989)(citation omitted).
The examiner argues on page 9 of the answer that claims
40, 41, 61-68 and 75 lack written description in the
specification to support the claimed “color look-up table.”
Appellant’s specifi- cation as filed does not explicitly use
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
11
the words “color look-up table.” However, Appellant argues on
page 3 of the brief that the disclosure on page 6 of the
specification, considered in conjunction with the disclosure
on pages 10-11, provide descrip- tive support that
transforming device 38 may be a “color look-up table.”
Page 6 of the specification describes various color
display options for text pictures, based on character type,
character frequency and color contrast. No reference is made
in this por- tion of the specification to a “color look-up
table.” Page 11 generally describes the transforming device
of block 38 as capa- ble of transforming characters into any
one of eight different available colors (page 11, lines 1-3).
More specifically, the functioning of block 38 is described as
follows:
Control unit 54 accordingly forms setting signals
for the transforming device 38. These signals
indicate the respective modes, for example
“unchanged”, “display according to column A of table
1", “display characters in a specific manner
according to detection by the detector of character
generator 36". Actually, the logic circuits for the
abovementioned detection and control are elementary
and are not further discussed
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
12
for the sake of shortness. Thus a picture in two or
more colours can appear at the output of
transforming device 38. A uni-coloured picture
(plus a different background colour) can also
appear, but this is already known.
(Page ll, lines 14-23.) This description says nothing about
the structure or components of transforming device 38.
Although the specification describes the function of
transforming device 38 as responding to control signals from
various components to effect a color change in certain output
characters, there is no descrip- tion of whether this is done
by a “color look-up table” or by some other kind of circuitry.
It is not even clear that the protocol used to transform
colors would come from the trans- forming device 38 itself, or
from some external control circuit such as the histogram
former 32, character generator 36 or control unit 54.
As the Examiner noted on page 9 of the answer, “[a]
trans- forming device is not always a look-up table,” and it
could be
any number of circuit elements including discrete logic
devices, analog devices with A/D converters, or a
microprocessor which calculates an algorithm for color
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
13
conversion. We find the Examiner’s interpretation of a look-
up table to require the retrieval of previously stored values.
Upon a review of Appellant’s specification, we fail to find
any previously stored values for color transformation. In any
case, appellant has not established that the “necessary and
only” reasonable construction of this disclosure supports the
claimed “color look-up table.” For purposes of satisfying the
written description requirement, it is not enough that one may
find it obvious to provide a claimed limitation, rather, the
limitation in question must be expressly described or
otherwise supported by the disclosure. See Lockwood v.
American Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d
1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“One shows that one is ‘in
possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with
all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.”
(emphasis in original) (quoted in University of California v.
Eli
Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed.
Cir. 1997))). Accordingly, the rejection is sustained.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
14
REJECTIONS UNDER § 103
I. Claims 40, 41, 61, 64-66, 68, 69 and 76-77 stand rejected
over Nopp in view of Havel. As an initial matter, we must
interpret the scope of the claims prior to considering whether
they would have been obvious in view of the prior art. See
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1362,
47 USPQ2d 1027, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The first step in any
invalidity or infringement analysis is claim construction.”).
Claim 61 is directed to a character display unit
comprising a picture memory, color transforming means which
performs cross- color mapping according to a color look-up
table, display means, wherein the color transforming means is
controllable in a first and second state. In the first state,
the color transforming means maps “two of said respective hues
on a single destination hue,” and in the second state it maps
“two of said respective hues on at least two respective
destination hues.”
Claim 69 differs from claim 61 in two ways: (1) no color
look-up table is claimed; and (2) the “cross-color mapping” of
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
15
characters is based on the “content and/or supporting
elements” of the characters being mapped in the first and
second states or the color transforming means.
Appellant’s specification fails completely to define
“cross-color mapping” and is less than clear in its
description of how the different states function. However,
during examination, we are required to give the claims their
broadest reasonable inter- pretation consistent with the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accord- ingly, given the
broadest reasonable interpretation, we construe the claimed
“cross-color mapping” to merely require transforming
one or more input colors to one or more different output
colors. The two states described in claim 61, therefore,
merely require a first state where two hues or input colors
are transformed to a single output hue or color, and a second
state where two input hues or colors are transformed to two
respective output hues or colors, which may or may not be
different from the input color. The same is true of the two
states in claim 69, however the color transformations of claim
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
16
69 take into account related character and/or supporting
element information.
Turning now to the prior art, with respect to claim 61,
Nopp teaches all of the claimed elements with the exception of
a “cross-color mapping” whereby an input color is changed to
a
different output color. Specifically, Nopp teaches a control
arrangement for a multi-colored visual display unit to be used
with characters, graphic patterns and/or other multi-color
images such as a television picture (page 2, lines 1-6). Nopp
recog- nizes the problem of legibility in color displays due
to low contrast of relatively dark characters and the relative
lack of sensitivity of the eye (Nopp page 3, lines 6-10).
Nopp seeks to remedy this by adjusting the brightness of the
displayed colors to create greater contrast (Nopp page 4,
lines 8-17).
Nopp discloses a picture memory or “image store” (page 5,
lines 12-13) and a display unit AE with a screen (page 8, line
28 to page 9, line 1 and Fig. 2). Additionally, Nopp
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
17
discloses a control unit (Figs. 2 and 4) containing a
“converter” which “converts first code words assigned to the
relatively dark colours into second code words which are
assigned to the cor- responding brightened colours” (page 5,
lines 15-17). This converter is analogous to the claimed
color transforming means and functions in at least two states
whereby the converter can either, in a first state, forward
the color signals unchanged to the image repetition store
(page 15, lines 7-15) or, in a second
state, produce additional brightness signals to brighten the
color signal associated with certain characters (page 15,
lines 1-6).
Moreover, the converter UM1 (Fig. 4) is described as able
to “contain a store in which the background colour which
applies to the character array in question is intermediately
stored, and the brightening of the relatively dark colours
can take place in dependence upon the contents of said store”
(page 15, lines 12-15). We agree with the examiner that this
suggests a color look-up table to one of ordinary skill in the
art, since the transforming device acts in accordance with the
instructions stored in UM1.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
18
While Nopp admittedly does not change the color tone
(Nopp page 4, line 21 to page 4a, line 2), this is taught by
Havel. Havel is directed to solving the same problem as Nopp,
namely, improving legibility of a color display by improving
contrast between displayed characters and their backgrounds
(Havel,
col. 1, lines 36-41). Havel accomplishes this by changing
the output color of the background to a complementary color of
the displayed character (Havel, col. 6, lines 14-20). This
transformation of one input color to a different output color,
depending on the color of the character and/or stored
supporting character information teaches the broadly claimed
“cross-color mapping” function of claims 61 and 69.
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art, faced with
the problem of improving legibility of a color display, would
have been motivated to modify the system of Nopp to provide
for color change, rather than merely increasing brightness,
according to the teachings of Havel. In view of the teachings
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
19
of Nopp and Havel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the subject matter of claims 61 and 69 to be obvious.
We note that Appellant has not argued the limitation of
mapping two respective hues on a single destination here found
in claim 61. Instead, Appellant argues that the claimed
invention is not obvious in view of the applied combination of
references because Nopp fails to teach cross-color mapping,
and Havel only teaches cross-color mapping of the background,
not the characters themselves. Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive because he attacks the teachings of the
references individually, rather than addressing their combined
teachings. A combination of references leading to a
conclusion of obviousness cannot be defeated by
attacking all of the references individually. E.g., In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882
(CCPA 1981).
As discussed above, “cross-color mapping,” given its
broadest reasonable interpretation, merely requires trans-
formation of a given input color to a different output color.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
20
Havel clearly teaches transforming a given input color for the
background of a character to a different output color in order
to improve contrast. Nopp teaches transformation of the
brightness of a character itself, as opposed to transformation
of the back- ground. As discussed above, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have known to combine these teachings
to actually trans-form the color of the character in a color
display, in order to improve contrast and legibility.
Appellant further argues that neither Nopp nor Havel
teaches a color look-up table. We disagree. When evaluating
references for purposes of obviousness, it is proper to take
into account not only the specific teachings of the
references, but also the knowledge of the skilled artisan.
E.g., In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1124 (1996); In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). As
we found above, the disclosure of Nopp suggests a “color look-
up table” in its description of UM1.
Furthermore, this teaching combined with the teachings of
color
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
21
change in Havel would have suggested use of a “color look-up
table” as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant argues that claim 69 recites "content and/or
supporting elements" which is not shown or suggested by Nopp
or Havel. The Examiner responds to this argument on page 12
of the answer that this limitation reads on the control SAZ
and SGZ shown in Figure 4 and described at page 14, lines 3-
23. We find the Examiner’s position is reasonable on its face
and has not been challenged.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 40, 41,
61, 64-66, 68, 69 and 76-77 over Nopp in view of Havel.
II. Claims 62, 63, 67 and 73 stand rejected over Nopp in view
of Havel and further in view of Iwai. These claims are not
argued separately with any specificity, therefore, they stand
or fall with independent claims 61 and 69. Applicant has
waived any specific arguments as to these dependent claims by
failing to raise them in his brief to the board. See Becton
Dickinson & Co.
v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800, 17 USPQ2d 1097, 1103
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[W]e see no reason to depart from the sound
practice
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
22
that an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening
brief . . . is waived.”).
Appellant’s sole argument (found on page 6 of the brief)
for overturning this rejection is:
Iwai et al does not show or suggest appellant’s
color transforming means recited in claims 61 and 69
and since claims 62, 63, 67 and 73 depend from one
of claims 61 and 69, they are likewise allowable
over the combination of Nopp, Havel and Iwai et al,
whether taken alone or in combination for the
reasons stated above with respect to claims 61 and
69.
Once again, Appellant makes the mistake of attacking the
teachings of Iwai individually, rather than in combination
with the teachings of Nopp and Havel. Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097, 231 USPQ at 380; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426, 208 USPQ at
882. As discussed above, Nopp as modified by Havel teaches
the claimed color transforming means. Iwai further teaches
additional elements of certain dependent claims. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Even if the claims were argued separately, however, they
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
light of the teachings of Iwai combined with the previously
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
23
discussed teachings of Nopp and Havel for the reasons stated
by
the Examiner. Claims 67 and 73 depend from claims 61 and 69
respectively, and further recite a “histogram-former.” Iwai
expressly teaches “a chromaticity histogram generator 40"
(col. 4, lines 26-28 and Fig. 3) for use in color mapping of a
color image display system. Because Nopp, Havel and Iwai are
all concerned with color image display systems, and more
specifically with conversion of color data, one of ordinary
skill in the art would consider their teachings together. It
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate
the circuit of Iwai into the display system of Nopp as
modified by Havel in order to optimize control of hues for
better color contrast.
Claims 62 and 63 depend from claim 61 and further require
that the “output of said color transforming means is
retrocoupled to an input of said picture memory” (claim 62)
and the contents of the picture memory is stored as a bit map
(claim 63). Figure 1 of Iwai teaches a quantizer coupled to
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
24
an input of memory 14. Iwai’s quantizer is analogous to the
color trans- forming means because it selects the stored color
data for each image (col. 4, lines 9-10). Memory or “frame
buffer 14” cor- responds to a picture memory because it stores
the pixel data to be written in each location of the frame
buffer (col. 3,
lines 27-31). Iwai also teaches that a bit mapped memory is
conventional (col. 3, lines 27-31).
Based on the above teachings and Appellant’s failure to
argue these claims separately, the rejection of claims 62, 63,
67 and 73 over Nopp in view of Havel and further in view of
Iwai is affirmed.
III. Claims 70-72 and 74-75 stand rejected over Nopp in
view of Havel and further in view of PC Magazine or Staar.
These claims are not argued separately with any specificity,
therefore, they stand or fall with independent claims 61 and
69. Applicant has waived any specific arguments as to these
dependent claims by failing to raise them in his brief to the
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
25
board. See Becton Dickinson, 922 F.2d at 800, 17 USPQ2d at
1103.
Appellant’s sole argument (found on page 6 of the brief)
for overturning this rejection is:
Appellant submits that neither Staar or PC magazine
teach or suggest the color transforming means
recited in claims 61 and 69. Claims 70-72, 74 and
75 depend from one of claims 61 and 69 and are
therefore allowable over the Nopp, Havel, PC
Magazine and Staar for the reasons stated above with
respect to claims 61 and 69.
As discussed above, this argument fails because it attacks
the teachings of the references individually, rather than in
combination. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097, 231 USPQ at 380;
Keller,
642 F.2d at 426, 208 USPQ at 882. The claimed color
transforming
means is taught by Nopp as modified by Havel. PC Magazine and
Staar further teach additional elements of certain dependent
claims. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Even if the claims were argued separately, however, they
would have been obvious for the reasons stated by the
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
26
examiner. Claims 70-72 and 74 all depend from claim 69 and
further recite a detector responsive to a numeric digit
(claim 70), capital character (claims 71 and 74), character
sequence, end of line or space (claim 72). Staar expressly
teaches a capital letter detector for a text display (col. 4,
lines 10-29 and Fig. 2). The PC Magazine article teaches that
changing the color of a character in a text display system is
well known (page 160, middle column, lines 7-15). These
references are directed to highlighting certain characters
depending on their position or type, rather than content, as
recited in claim 69. Both Staar and PC Magazine are directed
to the problem of making such characters more visible in a
color display. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art
seeking to create contrast in a video display would have
considered these references as well as Nopp
and Havel. Together, the teachings of Staar and PC Magazine
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
incorporating a detector for different character types in the
visual display system of Nopp, as modified by Havel.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
27
Claim 75 depends indirectly from claim 61 and further
recites that in “said first state the total number of
displayed colors is less than in said second state.” Claim 75
is not argued separately and would have been obvious over the
combined teachings of Nopp and Hovel for the reasons discussed
above.
Based on the above teachings and Appellant’s failure to
argue these claims separately, the rejection of claims 70-72
and 74-75 over Nopp in view of Havel and further in view of PC
Magazine or Staar is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 40, 41, 61-68 and 75 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and claims 40, 41, and 61-77
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136.
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
28
AFFIRMED
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
29
U.S. Philips Corp.
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591