Ex Parte Willis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2014

11038292 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/038,292 01/19/2005 Thomas E. Willis ITL.1245US (P20964) 6637
21906 7590 02/25/2014
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
HOLTON, STEVEN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS E. WILLIS
____________

Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES T. MOORE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Examiner on page 3 of the Answer correctly notes that claims 1-25 are
rejected despite Appellant’s status of the claims on page 5 of the Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) incorrectly including claims 26-32 that were never
pending. The correct status of the claims is confirmed by the Examiner’s
Supplemental Answer mailed January 18, 2011 (“Supp. Ans.”) that clarifies
the grounds of rejection for claims 1-25 that, despite some inadvertent
omissions in the Answer mailed September 1, 2010 (“Ans.”), were
nonetheless presented in the Final Rejection mailed April 30, 2008 (“Fin.
Rej.”). Accordingly, we present the correct claim listing here for clarity.
Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is an illumination modulation technique for
microdisplays that includes changing the duty cycle of a light beam to
establish pixel intensity in alternate frames. See generally Abstract. Claims
1, 3, and 4 are illustrative:
1. A method comprising:

pulse width modulating the duty cycle of a light beam to establish a
pixel intensity; and

varying the duty cycle between two frames.

3. The method of claim 1 including varying the duty cycle in a
successive frame.

4. The method of claim 3 including changing the duty cycle in every
other frame.

THE REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Sekiya (US 6,583,775 B1; issued June 24, 2003).
Fin. Rej. 3-4; Supp. Ans. 3-4.3

2 Because the Examiner withdrew an earlier rejection under § 112 (Supp.
Ans. 1-2), it is not before us.
3 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection omits the rejected
claim numbers and incorrectly cites § 102 in connection with this rejection
(Fin. Rej. 3; Supp. Ans. 3), the Examiner’s rejection nonetheless pertains to
the obviousness of claims 1, 3, 21, and 23 over Sekiya when considered as a
whole. See Fin. Rej. 3-4; Supp. Ans. 3-4. Accordingly, we deem the
Examiner’s error harmless and present the correct statement of the rejection
here for clarity.
Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

3
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 5, 11-15, 22, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sekiya and Urbanus (US 6,362,835 B1;
issued Mar. 26, 2002). Fin. Rej. 4-5; Supp. Ans. 4-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Sekiya, Urbanus, and Singhal (US 5,313,224;
issued May 17, 1994). Fin. Rej. 5-6; Supp. Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Sekiya, Urbanus, and Bassetti (US 5,298,915;
issued Mar. 29, 1994). Fin. Rej. 7-8; Supp. Ans. 7-9.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SEKIYA AND URBANUS
The Examiner finds that Sekiya and Urbanus collectively teach every
recited element of claim 4 except for changing the duty cycle in every other
frame, but nonetheless concludes that this change would have been obvious
when displaying moving images in Sekiya or in conventional “fade in” or
“fade out” sequences. Fin. Rej. 4-5; Supp. Ans. 4-6; Ans. 7-10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s characterization of Urbanus
regarding not being limited to a single frame is flawed and, in any event,
randomly changing pixel intensity or fading in or out does not change duty
cycle every other frame—a change that is said to require regular or periodic
action that occurs not in every frame, but in every other frame. App. Br. 10;
Reply Br. 1-3.

Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

4
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 by finding
that Sekiya and Urbanus collectively would have taught or suggested
changing the duty cycle of a light beam in every other frame?

ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4 that
depends from claim 3 that, in turn, depends from claim 1. First, it is
undisputed that Sekiya renders claims 1 and 3 obvious, the latter of which
recites varying a light beam duty cycle in a successive frame. Although
claim 4 further narrows this duty cycle change to every other frame, the
claim does not specify the particular nature of this change apart from merely
changing the duty cycle in those frames.
Appellant’s contention, then, that this change requires “regular” or
“periodic” action (Reply Br. 1-2) is unavailing, for it is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. All claim 4 requires is some change in duty
cycle in every other frame, regardless of whether the change is regular,
periodic (e.g., consistent changes in even or odd frames), “natural” (to use
Appellant’s term),4 or even non-uniform, so long as some change occurs in
every other frame.
Given this breadth, we find no error in the Examiner’s position that it
would have at least been obvious that displaying a sequence of three or more
moving images on the Sekiya/Urbanus system will change the brightness

4 See Reply Br. 2 (“There is absolutely no reason to come up with an image
which just happens to have pixels that naturally change their duty cycle in
every other frame.”) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

5
levels (and therefore the associated duty cycles) in at least two of the
frames.5 This reasoning makes sense, at least regarding images that move
from frame to frame, for skilled artisans would recognize that there would be
at least some brightness differences between at least some pixels that render
that motion in each frame, including non-consecutive frames. For a five-
frame motion sequence, for example, the brightness (and associated duty
cycle) for at least some pixels would not only change for each frame, but
also occur in at least every other frame, including (1) the first and third
frames; (2) the second and fourth frames, and (3) the third and fifth frames.
Although there may be sequences where the same image is displayed
for three consecutive frames as Appellant indicates (Reply Br. 2), that
scenario does not obviate other scenarios where the image changes for those
frames—distinct scenarios that the Examiner apparently acknowledges. See
Ans. 9 (“[T]he sequence of images transmitted to the display system of
Sekiya and Urbanus would or would not cause that the duty cycles of pixels
change every other frame.”) (emphasis added). Appellant’s assertion that, in
most cases, successive sets of three frames have the same depiction due to
the “typical” 60 frames per second rate is speculative and unsubstantiated
and thus falls well short of persuasively rebutting the Examiner’s position.
Mere lawyer argument and conclusory statements that are unsupported by

5 Although the Examiner’s finding that Sekiya does not expressly disclose
moving images runs counter to Sekiya’s discussion of moving pictures in
column 17, lines 3 through 28, we nonetheless deem any error associated
with the Examiner’s statement harmless, for we find no error in the
Examiner’s position for the reasons indicated in the opinion and by the
Examiner.
Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

6
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner’s position regarding conventional “fade in” or “fade
out” sequences (Ans. 10) likewise has not been persuasively rebutted on this
record. Appellant’s assertion that “[t]here is no regular change from one
frame to the second ensuing frame in any kind of fade-in or fade-out” (Reply
Br. 2) is not only speculative and unsupported, it is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim which does not require a “regular” change in duty
cycle, but rather just some such change in every other frame as noted above.
We see no reason why such a change would not occur in fade-ins or
fade-outs as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 10. A “fade-in” is defined as
“[t]he gradual appearance of images and/or sounds, such as might occur at
the beginning of a movie or song.” Steven M. Kaplan, WILEY ELECTRICAL
& ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DICTIONARY 273 (2004). Similarly, a “fade-
out” is “[t]he gradual disappearance of images or sounds, such as might
occur at the end of a movie or song.” Id. Because this gradual image
appearance and disappearance involves gradual changes in image brightness,
these changes would likewise involve a corresponding gradual change in
duty cycle, particularly in view of undisputed fact that varying duty cycle
varies brightness. Accord Urbanus, col. 3, ll. 6-7 (“Brightness may be
increased by increasing the duty cycle of the pixel.”). If this gradual duty
cycle change occurs over at least three frames, it would yield a change in
duty cycle in at least every other frame as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 10.
For example, to achieve a uniform fade-out in five frames, a representative
duty cycle change can be achieved as follows:

Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

7
Frame 1 2 3 4 5
Duty cycle (%) 100 75 50 25 0

Table 1: Exemplary five-frame image fade-out and corresponding duty
cycles

In this example, the duty cycle changes not only in every frame, but
also in every other frame, namely (1) frames 1 and 3; (2) frames 2 and 4; and
(3) frames 3 and 5. A similar sequence of changes would occur with a
uniform fade-in as well, but in the opposite direction. To the extent that
Appellant contends that changing the duty cycle in every other frame
somehow excludes such a gradual change, such an argument is unpersuasive
and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 4, and claims 14 and 24 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejections of (1)
claims 1, 3, 21, and 23 over Sekiya (Fin. Rej. 3-4; Supp. Ans. 3-4); (2)
claims 2, 5, 11-13, 15, 22, and 25 over Sekiya and Urbanus (Fin. Rej. 4-5;
Supp. Ans. 4-6); (3) claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 over Sekiya, Urbanus, and
Singhal (Fin. Rej. 5-6; Supp. Ans. 6-7); and (4) claims 8-10 and 18-20
§ 103(a) over Sekiya, Urbanus, and Bassetti (Fin. Rej. 7-8; Supp. Ans. 7-9),
we summarily sustain those rejections. See MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground
of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).
Appeal 2011-007087
Application 11/038,292

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk