Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021000298 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/307,693 10/28/2016 Peter MOROVIC 84532852 8141 22879 7590 03/09/2022 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER BUTCHER, BRIAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): ipa.mail@hp.com jessica.pazdan@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte PETER MOROVIC, JAN MOROVIC, DAVID A. FATTAL, and MARCO FIORENTINO1 ________________ Appeal 2021-000298 Application 15/307,693 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, AMBER L. HAGY, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15, which constitute all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 12-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board reviews the obviousness rejection for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, filed May 15, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3. Appeal 2021-000298 Application 15/307,693 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the presently claimed subject matter as follows: A pixel source for a visual presentation is disclosed. The pixel source can include a light source, a large gamut pixel, a subtractive mask, and a control input to control the subtractive mask. A display device is also disclosed comprising a light source array with a large gamut pixel array and subtractive mask array disposed thereon. In operation, wide-band light emitted from each light source can be modulated by each large gamut pixel to output a plurality of primary colors. Each subtractive mask can be controlled to block, partially transmit, or fully transmit any number of the outputted primary colors to produce color points that can be interpolated and half-toned to output a large gamut of secondaries for each pixel. Spec. Abstr. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims: 1. A pixel source for a visual presentation comprising: a light source; a large gamut pixel to receive light emitted by the light source, the large gamut pixel including a plurality of sub-pixels, each of the plurality of sub-pixels to output a wavelength corresponding to a primary color; a subtractive mask including a plurality of cells to overlay a plurality of cells of the large gamut pixel, each of the plurality of cells of the subtractive mask to be (i) de-asserted to transmit the wavelength corresponding to the primary color, or (ii) asserted to block the wavelength corresponding to the primary color; and a controller to assert or de-assert each of the plurality of cells of the subtractive mask to generate an output of color points of the wavelength corresponding to the primary color transmitted through the de-asserted cells of the subtractive mask, wherein the Appeal 2021-000298 Application 15/307,693 3 output includes half-toned primary color points comprising a mixture of color points. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). STATEMENT OF THE REJECTION Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park (CN101135794A; published Mar. 5, 2008) and Takashi (US 5,309,170; issued May 3, 1994). Final Act. 2-9.2 DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Park discloses every limitation of claim 1 except for the limitation, “wherein the outputs include half-toned primary color points comprising a mixture of color points.” Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner interprets the claimed light source as reading on Park’s light emitting unit 20. Id. at 2. The Examiner interprets the claimed “large gamut pixel to receive light emitted by the light source, [and] including a plurality of sub-pixels, each of the plurality of sub-pixels to output a wavelength corresponding to a primary color” as reading on Park’s color filter 226. Id. The Examiner interprets the claimed “subtractive mask including a plurality of cells to overlay a plurality of cells of the large gamut 2 Citations for Park’s written disclosure refer to the machine translation that appears in the record. The drawings for the CN ’794 patent document are not in the record, but they are available online. See https://worldwide. espacenet.com/patent/search/family/039150828/publication/ CN101135794A?q=101135794 (last accessed March 3, 2022). The drawings also are depicted in a related U.S. Patent to Park (US 8,013,821 B2; issued September 6, 2011). Appeal 2021-000298 Application 15/307,693 4 pixel,” as reading on Park’s liquid crystal material. Id.; see also id. at 9 (“[T]he cells in the liquid crystal layer of the display of Park serve a[s] ‘masks’ that can be ‘asserted’ and ‘de-asserted’ to affect the transmittance of primary color wavelength through the liquid crystal layer.”). The Examiner finds that “Takashi teaches a display where a display dot (pixel) constituted by three primary color pixels (sub-pixels) utilizes half-toning of the three primary colors to create an output of a mixture of the primary colors.” Id. at 3 (citing Takashi Abstr.). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to provide ‘wherein the outputs include half-toned primary color points comprising a mixture of color points’ because one having ordinary skill . . . would [have wanted] to be able to display more than simple combinations of the three primary colors.” Id. Appellant asserts, among other things, that Park does not teach or suggest a subtractive mask including a plurality of cells to overlay a plurality of cells of the large gamut pixel, each of the plurality of cells of the subtractive mask to be (i) de-asserted to transmit the wavelength corresponding to the primary color, or (ii) asserted to block the wavelength corresponding to the primary color. Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). ANALYSIS Claim 1 requires that a large gamut pixel receive light emitted by a light source and that each of a plurality of sub-pixels of the large gamut pixel outputs a wavelength corresponding to a primary color. Appeal Br. 26. Claim 1 further requires that a subtractive mask overlay the cells of the large Appeal 2021-000298 Application 15/307,693 5 gamut pixel and either transmit or block the wavelengths that are output from the sub-pixels of the large gamut pixel. Id. Park’s liquid crystal display includes a light emitting unit 20, a display panel 10, and a liquid crystal layer interposed therebetween. E.g., Park 2-3; Figs. 1, 5, 11. The light emitting unit 20 includes light sources 22, 23, 24, that emit red, green, and blue light, and these colors of light are blended to form white light 4. Id. at 4; Figs. 1, 5. The white light 4 emitted from the light emitting unit 20 is directed to Park’s display panel 10. Park Fig. 1. The display panel 10 includes red (R), green (G), and blue (B) filters 226 that filter the white light 4 so as to respectively transmit only red, green, or blue light. Id. at 4; Fig. 11. Park’s liquid crystal layer 300 controls whether the white light 4 emitted from the light emitting unit 20, or “light source,” as claimed, reaches the color filters 226 of the display panel 10. Id.; Figs. 1, 11. In contrast, and as noted above, claim 1 requires that the subtractive mask overlay the large gamut pixel so as to control whether the primary colors that are emitted from the sub-pixels of the large gamut pixel are blocked or transmitted to generate an output of color points. This claimed subtractive mask differs from Park’s liquid crystal layer in that Park’s liquid crystal layer controls the light that is emitted from the light emitting unit 20 and received by the color filters 226 of the display panel 10. Park’s liquid crystal layer does not block or transmit light that is transmitted by the color filters 226. As such, Appellant persuades us that the Examiner errs in interpreting the claimed large gamut pixel to receive light emitted by the light source as reading on Park’s color filter 226 and the claimed subtractive mask as Appeal 2021-000298 Application 15/307,693 6 reading on Park’s liquid crystal material. Final Act. 2, 9. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not sufficiently established that Park teaches or suggests these elements in the relative positions claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Takashi for teaching these elements in the relative positions claimed. Final Act. 3. We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We, likewise, reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2-15, which either depend from claim 1 or otherwise include similar claim language. Appeal Br. 26-29. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: REVERSED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15 103 Park, Takashi 1-15