Ex Parte Morgan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

11058889 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL J. MORGAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-0072261
Application 11/058,889
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Texas Instruments, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)

Appeal 2010-007226
Application 11/058,889

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-18. Claims 8-10, 19, and 20 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 4.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for increasing the number of
bits displayed in a video display system by reducing the light output from
the light source (102) illuminating a spatial light modulator (116). (Spec. 6,
ll. 1-8.) In particular, the modulator (116) can display a non-least significant
bit having multiple portions, each portion having a respective start time and
stop time. (Figures 1 and 3.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 2 further illustrates the invention as follows:

2. A video display system, comprising:
a spatial light modulator;
a light source operable to illuminate the spatial light
modulator;
a variable power supply operable to change a light output
of the light source from a first level to a second level; and

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections previously entered against claims 1,
6, 7, 16, and 17. (Ans. 2-3.) Further, we note that the status of claim 18 is
unaccounted for.
Appeal 2010-007226
Application 11/058,889

3
a controller operable to synchronize a display, by a
spatial light modulator, of a least significant bit and multiple
portions of a non-least significant bit, each portion having a
respective start time, with a change in the light output of the
light source from the first level to the second level.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Barlow US 5,712,650 Jan. 27, 1998
Wood US 6,535,187 B1 Mar. 18, 2003

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 2, 3, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wood.
2. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wood and Barlow.
3. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wood.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 12-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-5.

Appeal 2010-007226
Application 11/058,889

4
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
finding that Wood describes displaying a non- least significant bit including
multiple portions, each portion having a respective start time, as recited
claim 2?
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Wood
describes the disputed limitations emphasized above. (Reply Br. 3-4.) In
particular, Appellant argues that Wood discloses a non-least significant bit
having a single display period with a single start time and a single stop time,
whereas the claimed invention requires a non-least bit having multiple
portions with respective start portions. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Wood’s disclosure of a single
time period includes multiple portions with respective start times as
described in the disputed limitations. (Ans. 7.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding
of anticipation. As argued by Appellant, Wood discloses a period (t3-t4) for
a non-least significant bit (LSB+3). (Fig. 3.) While it is feasible to partition
the disclosed period into a multiple portions, such disclosure is not
inherently or expressly described in Wood to support the Examiner’s finding
of anticipation. Because of the conjecture surrounding the Examiner’s
finding, we find that Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 2.
Because claims 3-5, 11-15, and 18 recite commensurate limitations as
those discussed above, and Barlow does not cure the noted deficiencies, we
Appeal 2010-007226
Application 11/058,889

5
find Appellant has also shown error in the Examiner’s rejections of those
claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2-5, 11-15, and 18.

REVERSED

msc