`
`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
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
` CONF {MATION NO.
`
`90/020,037
`
`12/28/2012
`
`RE43707
`
`CA0006X
`
`1345
`
`7590
`49108
`HARTMANPATENTSPLLC
`3399 FLINT HILL PL.
`WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192
`
`12/23/2013
`
`SORRELL, ERON J
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`12/23/2013
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`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)
`
`BARCO NV Exh 2006
`
`Eizo Corp. v. BARCO NV
`
`lPR2014-00773
`
`

`

` LIN]. TED STATES PATEN T AND. TRMUEWK [DFFICE
`
`C ornrn Lee in n er for P ate rite.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. EMMSU
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`vuwmusprogov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER‘S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`NBF HIBIYA BLDG., 25F 1-1-7, UCHISAIWAI-CHO
`CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO, 100-0011
`JAPAN
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMI'I'I'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/020 037.
`
`PATENT NO. RE43707 ETAL..
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.O7-O4)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Summary of the Proceeding to Date
`
`The present reexamination proceeding is being examined under
`
`
`
`the pre—A"A ‘irst to invent provisions.
`
`On 12/28/;2,
`
`I)
`
`a Third Party requested ex parte reexamination 0;
`
`
`
`claims 36, 46, 54, 64-82, 85-88, 91-94, 98-104, and 107 of
`
`
`
`U.S. ?auen, No. RE43,707 to Kimpe et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'707 ?a,enu").
`
`
`(hereinafter "the
`
`
`On 3/19/13, an Order for reexamination and the corresponding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Non—‘ina' O""ice action rejecting all the claims identi‘ied in
`
`
`
`the request were mailed.
`
`
`
`the Patent Owner filed a response to the Non—final
`
`On 5/21/13,
`
`
`
`0 "ice action, providing arguments directed toward the
`
` outstanding rejections and adding new claims 116—130.
`
`On 9/20/13,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a ‘inal O""ice action was mailed wherein the
`
`
`rejections of claims 64, 65, 67-73, 77-79, 81, 82, 91, 98,
`
`99
`
`were maintained, while new claims ll6—ll8 are also rejected.
`
`Claims 36, 46, 54, 66, 74-76, 80, 85-88, 93, 94, 100-104, 107
`
`
`were confirmed, while new claims ll9—l30 are ‘ound to be
`
`
`
`
`patentable over the art 0: record.
`
`
`Responsive to that action the Patent Owner filed a response
`
`
`
`
`a"Ler "ina' on ll/22/‘3, canceling claims 67, 81, 82, and 116;
`
`
`
`
`
`amending claims 68, 7;, 74, 98, 117, and 118; and providing
`
`

`

`
`
`Applica
`
`:ion/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`
`furtrer arguments regarding the outstanding rejections which
`
`are
`
`
`fully addressed below in the order presented.
`
`7) With this action,
`
`91 are maintained,
`
`" claims 64, 65, 77-79, and
`the rejections o:
`
`
`while the rejeCtions of claims 68-74, 98,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for the reasons set forth
`and 118 are withdrawn
`
`99,
`
`ll7,
`
`below.
`
`Response to
`
`arguments
`
`
`
`" Kamada fails
`The Patent Owner argues that Kawase in view 0:
`
`to render obvious claims 64,
`
`65,
`
`71—73, 77—79, 98, and 99. At
`
`
`page 7 o:
`
`the Remarks the Patent Owner argues,
`
`“Claims 64,
`
`65,
`
`71-73,
`
`and 77-79 depend
`
` from claim 62.
`
`logic elements configured to
`Claim 62 recites an array 0:
`
`that comprises
`generate a display signal based on a map
`
`
`
`
`
`to produce a desired non—uniform
`correCtion data configured
`'3
`_a
`,en
`
`The
`
`response.
`0 Owner respectfully
`light-output
`reiterates
`
`
`
`sO
`
`
`that Kawase
`fails
`,each this feauure ”
`
`
`
`
`
`the Patent Owner continues,
`
`
`CorreCtion o:
`
`Hi)
`"any display unevenness produces a
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner respectfu'
`ly notes
`uniform response...
`the O"
`
`Lhao
`"any
`"ice Action's argument is contradictory: i:
`
`then it
`is clear that the
`
`correction data has produced a uniform response."
`
`display unevenness is corrected,"
`
`
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`The
`Examiner disagrees.
`
`Kawase does indeed produce a non-
`
`uni
`
` form response.
`
`At lines 31—47
`
`O: column 18 Kawase teaches,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`the correCtion operation is
`carried out again. Namely, Lntil the deviation between the
`
`
`
`luminance information (the emission carrent amount
`
`the target value (a value having an established correlation
`
`
`
`with a Larges luminance va'Le "d)
`reaches or falls be'ow a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`le) and
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`“This luminance capturing ard correction operation is
`
`the pixels. Once
`sequentia' y carried out across all 0:
`renewa' of the correction value has been carried out one
`
`
`time on a" of the pixels,
`
`
`
`
`
`fixed value,
`
`
`
`
`
`the renewal of correction value is repeated.
`
`With regard to the conditiors of convergence, as a rough
`measure 0" deviation,
`it is desirable that deviation from
`
`the target value be 40 d3 or less,
`on the image to be displayed.”
`
`
`
`
`though this also depends
`
`This passage shows chat
`
`,here is some allowed deviation
`
`between the luminance informauion and the target value. Here
`
`
`
`Kawase teaches the correction process is repeated again and
`
`
`again, until the deviation reaches a fixed value or crosses a
`
`threshold. Kawase also gives a recommendation as to the amount
`
`
`0: deviation,
`
`
`i.e. 40 d3.
`
`
`The Patent Owner further argues:
`
`
`
`"ii) Kawase uses di
`eren, correction value to produce a
`
`
`
`uniform response... As nOted above,
`if "any display
`
`unevenness is correCted," then the display is uniform, with
`
`the same ligho-outpuo response at each pixelm The Patent
`
`Owner respectfully reiterates that the desired response of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kawase is uniformity (see, e.g., abst.).”
`
`
`See page 8 o:
`
`the remarks.
`
`The Examiner’s Response:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`As was the case above,
`
`the
`
` Examiner disagrees.
`
`Kawase does
`
`
`indeed produce a non—uniform
`
`response. Kawase teaches there is
`
`some allowed deviation between the luminance information and the
`
`target value,
`
`
`therefore the Kawase meets the claimed limitation.
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner continues,
`
`
`
`
`
`“The O""ice ACtion also staues ,ha, "suppressing liminance
`
`
`variance is the objeCtive of the Patent Owner's invention
`
`.... This is the same function as the Kawase paoeno." (pp.
`
`11—;2). The ?atent Owner respecufully notes that this
`statement is incorreCt. Unlike <awase,
`the '707 Paoen,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`explicitly does teach obtaining desired non—uniform
`responses.”
`
`See page 8 o:
`
`the remarks.
`
`Examiner's Response:
`
`The Examiner disagrees.
`
`The
`
`‘707 Patent teaches,
`
`
`luminance response 0:
`
`each individual
`
`“charaCterizing the
`
`the matrix display, and using this
`pixe' O"
`characterization to pre-correct the driving signals to that
`
`
`display in order to compensate for the expeCted
`
`
`
`(characterized) unequal
`luminance between di""erent
`
`
`
`pixels.”
`
`
`
`This citation shows suppressing luminance unevenness
`
`(compensating
`
`for unequal
`
`luminance) between pixels is an
`
`
`objective of the ‘707 Patent.
`
`Additionally, as shown above
`
`Kawase does indeed produce a
`
`
`non—uniform response. Kawase
`
`teaches there is some allowed deviation between the luminance
`
`

`

`Applica
`:ion/Control Number: 90/020,037
`Ari Uniuz 3
`
`992
`
`Page 6
`
`informa
`
`,ion and the target value,
`
`
`therefore the Kawase meets the
`
`
`
`
`claimed limitation.
`
`The Patent Owner also
`
`argues,
`
`The Patent Owner
`
`al
`
`the al
`
`
`oerna
`
`,e primary
`
`withou'
`
`
`iniformity
`
`
`
` 1 non
`
`I]
`
`
`so respectfully no:es that the object o;
`
`
`ference Shiota is to produce "an image
`
`
`
`luminance and color" (col. 8, 11.59-64)
`
`re
`
`in
`
`and that the object of
`
`
`the alternate primary reference JP'699 is
`
`to "ensure display wi'
`
`:h no display unevenness" (para.
`
`8 at 11.3-
`
`
`
`7).
`
`
`See page 9 o:
`
`the Remarks.
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`The
`
` Examiner disagrees. With respect to Shiota, at lines
`
`25-31,
`
`
`Shiota discloses only correcting for G (green) and not R
`
`and 3
`
`(red and blue),
`
`as
`
`resulting in a simpler,
`
`G is the dominant
`
`luminance component
`
`lower cost correc:ion apparatus.
`
`Since
`
`
`
`
`
`R and Q are
`'eft uncorrected, Shiota teaches producing a non-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`un1"orm disp'ay. Regarding JR '699, paragraph 58, it is
`
`disclosed that luminance values can be set to suppress any
`
`unevenness, or set to any desired value. Setting the values to
`
`any value other than the values that suppress unneveness would
`
`
`necessarily produce a desired non-uniform response.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Claim 64
`
`The
`
` fails to
`
`
`
`?atent Own r r ;
`r nc s th
`
`argument above
`
`teach produce a non—uni:
`
` form response.
`
`The
`
`
`
`that Kawase
`
` Examiner
`
`disagrees
`
`
`for the reasons also mentioned above.
`
`The Patent Owner a:
`
`.80 argues,
`
`
`
`“ii) Kamada also teaches producing a uniform response...
`
`Clearly the desired response of Kamada
`(as of Kawase)
`
`
`
`correct the non-uniformity (to "reduc[e]
`the frame uneven
`
`
`
`
`appearance," para. 69), and nOt
`to produce di""erent degrees of
`
`
`
`
`non—uni formity in di
`"erent regions."
`
`
`
`
`
`is to
`
`
`The Patent Owner also argues that paragraphs 45 and 69 o:
`
`Kamada
`
`teach opposite examples with one having abnormal brightness at
`
`
`the center of
`
`
`,he display,
`
`brightness a,
`
`
`,he center of
`
`and another
`
`example having proper
`
`the display.
`
`
`See pages 9-10 0:
`
`the remarks.
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`Initially,
`
`
`
`
`
`"erent
`while paragraphs 45 and 69 do describe di
`
`examples,
`
`
`they are directed toward the same area 0:
`
`the display,
`
`
`
`namely the center as appreciated in the Patent Owner’s remarks
`
`and shown illustratively at
`
`
`figure 3.
`
`Additionally at paragraph
`
`69, Ramada teaches that i:
`
`
`the value 0:
`
`k2 is set to zero,
`
`the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`operation becomes identical to the operation in figure 3, which
`
`is what is described in paragraph 45 (see paragraph 69).
`
`Continuing, Kamada does indeed produce a desired non-
`
`
`uniform response. At paragraph 42, Ramada teaches reducing
`
`uneven appearance, not eliminating it. At paragraph 49, Ramada
`
`
`provides examples 0: when it would be desirable not
`
`to perform
`
`
`
`
`
`any correction, namely when the display data is close to black
`
`or close to white.
`
`These citations show that Kamada does indeed
`
`
`produce a desired non-uniform display.
`
`The Patent Owner argues:
`
`“iii) Kawase and Kamada teach alternatives, not
`
`complementsm Kamada teaches applying the correction value
`to pixels within a center portion, and applying the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`kl
`
`taught
`
`
`
`
`
`in paragraphs 45 and 69,
`
`
`
`correction value k2 to pixels in a periphery portion. As
`
`
`the va'ue of <' or <7 may
`
`be zero, depending upon which region already has "proper
`
`brightness." In contrast, Kawase teaches a di""eren,
`
`
`correction va'ue for each pixel in the display (e.g., col.
`
`
`lO, 11.45-50). These two r f r nc s Lh r for
`t ach
`
`
`
`respectfully noues that
`
`alternate correction schemes, although in each case,
`
`
`object is to obtain a uniform displaym the Patent Owner
`
`,he combined teachings of Kawase
`
`and Kamada do not suggest or support such a mix-and-match
`
`the
`
`approach."
`
`
`See page 10 o:
`
`the remarks.
`
`Examiner’s response:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`The Examiner disagrees.
`
`
`Initially, At figure 3 and
`
`
`
`paragraph 45, Ramada shows the correction value to be constant
`
`
`
`
`
`within the region and decreasing linearly to zero outside the
`
`
`region, meaning the value 0: correction data is decreased as the
`
`
`
`distance from the defined region increases (see paragraph 45),
`
`
`
`
`hence the degree 0: non—uniformity with the defined region is
`
`less than it would be outside the region. Kawase teaches that
`
`each pixel has a correction value, but does not
`
`teach that each
`
`
`
`
`value has to be di
`"erent. Clearly,
`
`the ordinarily skilled
`
`
`
`artisan would appreciate that neighboring pixels may have the
`
`same correction value as neighboring pixels may display the same
`
`abnormality, as appreciated by Kamada
`
`(see paragraph 5).
`
`
`Combining the teachings 0: both Kawase and Kamada is supported,
`
`
`
`because the regions defined by Kamada are made up 0:
`
`individual
`
`pixels (see paragraph 52) and Kawase teaches providing
`
`
`correction values to individual pixels (see lines 31—47 0:
`
`column 18).
`
`Claim 65
`
`The Patent Owner argues,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`displaym Clearly,
`
`
`
`the
`
`
`
`“Claim 65 depends from claim 62 and recioes Lhao the
`
`
`desired non-uniform light- ouupu, response comprises lower
`
`
`display noise for pixels subsoanoially at a cenoer ol
`
`
`
`
`display than for pixels substantially at edges of the
`
`the object of <amada is to "correCt
`
`so that after
`
`uneven image appearance" (para. 2)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`correction,
`
`the periphery portion will
`
`have the same
`
`
`
`The combined
`
`"proper brightness" as the center portion.
`
`<awase and Kamada do not
`teach or suggest
`teachings o;
`
`
`correction data configured to produce a non—uniform
`
`for center
`response that
`
`for edge pixels as recited in claim 65.”
`
`pixels than
`
`comprises
`
`lower display noise
`
`Examiner’s response:
`
`The Examiner disagrees.
`
`As mentioned above,
`
`Kamada teaches
`
`at paragraph 42,
`
`Kamada teaches reducing uneven appearance,
`
`not
`
`eliminating it. At paragraph
`
`49,
`
`I]
`
`Kamada provides examples or
`
`when it would be desirable not
`
`when the display data is close
`
`to per:
`
`
`
`form any correction,
`
`namely
`
`to black or close to white.
`
`
`
`These citations show that Kamada does indeed produce a desired
`
`
`
`non—uni‘orm disp'ay.
`
`Coupled with the teachings
`
`
`from paragraph
`
`
`the ordinari'y skil
`'ed artisan would recognize that pixels
`
`69,
`
`
`
`in the center portion of
`
`the display would have a desired non-
`
`form light output response with less noise than
`
`
`for pixels at
`
` uni
`
`
`
`edges 0:
`
`the display.
`
`Claims 77—79
`
`The Patent Owner argues,
`
`
`from claim 62 and recites
`
`that the
`
`“Claim 77 depends
`
`
`desired non—uniform light- output response comprises a
`
`first contrast substantially at a center 0:
`
`a second contrast substantially at edges 0:
`
`im 77.
`Claim 78 depends from cla
`Claim 79 depends
`62 and recites that the desired non—uni:
`form light-output
`I]
`
`
`response comprises contrasts substantially at a center or
`
` she disp:
`
`
`
`she disp:
`
`
`
`_ay and
`_ay.
`
`from claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`the display that are greater than contrasts substantially
`
`at edges of
`
`,he display.
`
`
`
`Firso,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,he O""ice
`The ?atent Owner respectfully notes ,hat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Action's conclusion does no, "ollow "rom ,he cioed facts.
`
`
`
`,he statemen,
`thao ",he area :at the center] has a
`
`
`
`
`
`level of luminance that is di""erent
`"rom the SJrrounding
`
`
`
`
`areas" describes the appearance of
`,he display before
`
`correction, with one region having "proper brightness" and
`
`anOther region having "abnormal brightness." The object o:
`
`Kamada is to "correct uneven image appearance" (para. 2)
`
`so
`
`,he various regions will be the
`thao ,he brightnesses of
`
`
`same after the correction value is applied. Likewise,
`
`
`objec, of Kawase is thao ,he luminance will be uniform
`
`after ,he correction values are applied (see, e.g., col.
`l9,
`ll.23-25).”
`
`
`
`
`
`the
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`
`The Examiner disagrees.
`
`
`Initially, as shown above, Kamada
`
`at paragraph 49, Ramada teaches reducing uneven appearance not
`
`
`
`
`
`eliminating it and details situations in which no correction is
`
`
`
`th r for
`oh
`d sir d light output response would
`
`performed,
`
`
`
`
`
`still exhibit the di""erence in luminanc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b tw n th c nt r
`
`
`
`region and the outside region would after correction, and
`
`
`
`
`
`"erent contrasts.
`therefore di
`
`Additionally,
`
`the patent Owner argues,
`
`“Moreover,
`
`di"" r nc
`
`it is clear that applying a constant correction
`
`value within a region, as taught by Kamada, will increase
`bOth light and dark areas in the region by the same amount
`
`
`(i.e., by the constant correCtion value). Accordingly,
`b tw n th light and dark areas in the region
`
`
`is unchanged by such correCtion. Therefore,
`the conclusion
`
`
`
`,ha, applying a constant correction va'ue within a region
`
`
`
`
`thereby changes the di""erence between light and dark areas
`
`
`
`the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`
`
`in the region is not supported by th
`
`Pa
`the
`at least these reasons,
`tent Owner respectfully
`sens
`submits
`that claim 77
`able over the combined
`
`teachings o:
`
`
`
`
`is pa
`Kawase and Kamada.”
`
`
`ZINC S.
`
`cit d r
`
`For
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`
`The Examiner disagrees.
`
`non—ini
`
`form light—output response comprises a
`
`
`Claim 77 recites tha'
`
`:
`
`the desired
`
`
`
` jirs a contrast
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subsoan,ia"y at a center of
`
`
`
`subsoantia"y at edges 0:
`
`
`
`the display and a second contrast
`
`Since Kamada teaches
`
`,he display.
`
`situations where
`
`DO COYYeC'
`
`
`:ion is per‘ormed
`
`(see paragraph 49).
`
`
`sam
` fam
`un v n appearance will still be exhibited and the
`
`Th
`
`
`
`
`
`"erences
`same di
`
`in luminance and thus contrast between the
`
`inside and outside area.
`
`
`Since no speci:
`
`fic arguments are presented regarding claims
`
`78 and 79,
`
`it appears the Patent Owner is relying on those
`
`
`With that the rejeCtion of
`
`those
`
`
`
`
`for the same reasons mentioned with
`
`claims dependence on claim 77.
`
` c'aims are a"
` _aim 77.
`
`
`
`so maintained
`
`respect to c:
`
`Claim 91
`
`Wi
`
`th regard to claim 91,
`
`the Patent Owner relies on the
`
`arguments presented with respect to claim 64.
`
`The
`
` Examiner
`
`
`
`disagrees
`
`
`for the same reasons as mentioned above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR CONFIRMATION
`
`
`
`The following is an examiner's soatement of reasons :or
`
`
`
`patentability and/or confirmation 0" ,he
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims found patentable
`
`68-74, 98, 99, 117, and
`
`s to a driving level in
`
`
`g responses 0:
`
`the
`
`in this reexamination proceeding: Claims
`
`118, as amended, are patentable over the
`
`
`art 0: record.
`
`Claim 68 as amended recites among ot
`
`her things, “a lower
`
`
`
`degree 0: non—uniformity among responses
`
`
`of the pixels to a
`
`
`
`va'ue O"
`
`the image signal that correspond
`
` a first range 0: driving levels than amon
`
`
`
`
`pixels to a value 0:
`
`the image signal tha
`
`t corresponds to a
`
`
`
`driving level outside the first range 0:
`
`driving levels.”
`
`The Patent Owner argues,
`
`“The Patent Owner agrees that Cok 2
`teaches setting a limit
`
`
`on the value 0: a combined correcoion ac
`
`
`
`
`
`"maximum thresho'd" in para. 29), and ,ha
`
`
`
`
`to the expected 'ifetime 0
`
`
`level 0:
`
`the display. Cok 2 teaches that
`
`,he display a
`
`
`
`
`
`,or
`
`u
`this limit is related
`
`(also called a
`
` this "desired
`
`t a desired brightness
`
`brightness level 0:
`
`the display" is a des
`
`ired average
`
`
`
`brightness:
`
`
`
`"a uniformity correction valu
`
`
`e may be found by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 14
`
`3992
`
`
`
`Art Unit:
`
`
`
`calculating
`
`
`,he average brightness o:
`
`the display with a nominal
`
`
`digital input signal and wherein the global correcoion "actor is
`
`
`
`a mu'tiplicaoion "actor equal
`
`
`
`display at the nominal digital input signal divided by the
`
`
`average brightness o:
`
`the display at the nominal digital input
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the desired brightness o:
`
`the
`
`signal"
`
`(para.
`
`l9, emphases supplied)m At least because Cok 2
`
`
`
`determines uni"ormity o
`a light—emitting element based on its
`
`
`combined correcoion facoor, and not wioh reference to any
`
`driving level,
`
`
`the ?atent Owner respecofully submits that claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`68 as amended is patentable.”
`
`The
`
` fails to
`
`Examiner agrees.
`
`
`
`
`combination 0: Kawase and Cok 2,
`
`
`
`teach a lower degree 0: non-uniformioy among responses
`
`The
`
`the image signal that corresponds to
`
`
`
`
`o:
`
`
`
`the pixels to a va'ue O"
`
`a driving level
`
`
`in a first range 0: driving levels than among
`
`
`
`
`
`responses of the pixels to a value 0:
`
`the image signal that
`
`
`
`corresponds to a driving level outside ,he first range 0;
`
`driving levels.
`
`As pointed ou'
`
`: by the ?atent Owner, Cok 2
`
`
`determines uniformity through
`
`
`the use 0: a correction factor
`
`
`
`which uses a desired average brightness value rather than a
`
`
`reference to a particular driving level.
`
`
`
`

`

`Claim 71 as amended recites among other things,
`
`
`formi
`non—uni.
`
`degree 0:
`
`display to a value 0.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,he image signal that corresponds to a
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`Claims 69 and 70 depend from claim 68 and thus are
`
`patentable for at least
`
` for the same reasons.
`
`The Examiner notes here that the Patent Owner provides the
`
`
`
`same arguments with respect to amended claims 117 and 118.
`
`
`Those arngents are persuasive for the same reasons.
`
`\\
`
` a first
`
`
`
`oy among responses 0‘ pixels 0‘ the
`
`
`
`
`
`in
`‘irst range 0_ driving 'evels; and a second
`driving 'evel
`
`degree 0:
`
`non—uni:
`
`
`
`formity among responses of the pixels to a
`
`
`
`
`value 0:
`
`the image signal that corresponds to a driving level in
`
`a second range 0:
`
`driving levels.”
`
`The Patent Owner argues, claim 71 is amended to recite that
`
`
`
`,he jirst degree 0:
`
`
`
`non—uniformity is among responses 0: pixels
`
`
`
`
`:o a value 0:
`
`the image signal that corresponds to a driving
`
`level in the
`
`
`first range, and that the second degree 0: non-
`
`
`
`
`
`uniformity is among responses 0" pixe's to a value or
`
`,he image
`
`
`
`signal that corresponds to a driving level in the second
`
`
`
`range... The combined teachings o: Kawase and Kamada fail to
`
`
`
`
`
`non—uni‘ormity.
`n E G.
`
`
`disclose such degrees 0:
`
`4 and the cited
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`paragraph 49,
`
`
`for example, Kamada teaches only one correction
`
`
`value for each gray level:
`
`
`the value k for each gray level
`
`between gl and g2, and a corresponding value between k and zero
`
`
`for each 0:
`
`
`
`the gray levels in the ranges labeled W2. Kamada
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:hus teaches that for any input gray level, al' 0" the correc:ed
`
`pixels receiving that input will have the same gray level shi:t,
`
`
`
`such that there is no non-uniformity among the responses or
`
`these pixels to that input gray level.
`
`
`
`
`The Examiner agrees. Kamada only teaches one correc:ion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`value for each gray level and not a range 0: non—unijormioy
`
`
`among the responses or
`
`,he pixels at that gray level,
`
`
`therefore
`
`
`
`
`Kamada fails to teach,
`
`
`
`
`,he jirst degree 0: non—uniformity is
`
`
`among responses 0: pixels to a value 0:
`
`
`
`the image signal that
`
`
`
`corresponds to a driving level in the first range, and that the
`
`
`
`
`
`second degree 0: non—uniformity is among responses 0" pixe's to
`
`
`a value 0:
`
`the image signal that corresponds to a driving level
`
`
`
`in the second range as required by claim 71.
`
`
`Claims 72 and 73 depend from claim 71 and thus are
`
`
`
`patentable for at least for the same reasons.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`Dependent claim 74, as amended, depends on claim 62, and
`
`recites among other things,
`
`
`a first degree 0: non—uniformity
`
`
`
`among responses of the pixels to a value of
`
`
`
`
`
`,he image signal
`
`
`within a luminance interval and a second degree 0: non-
`
`
`
`
`uniformity among responses of the pixels to a value or
`
`the image
`
`
`signal outside the luminance interval as in claim 74. Similar
`
`to claim 74,
`
`
`
`independent claim 98 recites,
`
`
`
`
`
`first degree 0: non—uniformity among responses of
`
`
`
`among Other things,
`
`a
`
`,he pixels to
`
`
`a value 0:
`
`the image signal within a luminance interval and a
`
`
`
`second degree 0: non-uniformity among responses of the pixels to
`
`
`
`
`a value 0:
`
`the image signal outside the luminance interval.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 74 was found to be patentable in a prior 0
`ice
`
`
`
`action, however was still amended to include the limitation
`
`described above.
`
`With respect to claim 98,
`
`the Patent Owner argues,
`
`mthe '707 Patent teaches equalizing pixel response within a
`
`luminance interval, and allowing non—optimized pixel responses
`
`outside the interval.
`
`
`
`
`In accordance with these teachings, claim
`
`
`
`
`98 is amended to recite that the lower degree 0: non—uniformity
`
`
`
`
`is among responses 0" pixe's to a value 0:
`
`the image signal
`
`
`within a luminance interval than among responses 0: pixels to a
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Applica
`
`:ion/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`value 0:
`
`the image signal outside the luminance interval. The
`
`Patent Owner respect:
`
`fully submits that claim 98 as amended is
`
`
`al'owable for at least
`
`the reasons discussed above with
`
`
`
`
`
`reference to claim 71.
`
`
`
`At lines 61—67 of
`
`
`column 23 and line 56 0: column 25 to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`line l3 0" column 76 O"
`the specification 0" the '707 Patent,
`
`a
`
`description is given concerning times it may be desirable to
`
`
`perform correction
`
`in the luminance domain rather than the
`
`digital
`
`driving level domain.
`
`
`The prior art 0: record,
`
`taken alone or in combination,
`
`fails to teach or suggest a light output response comprising a
`
` formi
`
`
`
`
`first degree 0: non—uni
`
`
`oy among responses 0: pixels to a
`
` :hin a luminance interval and a
`
`
`value 0:
`
`the image sigr
`
`a" wi
`
`
`
`
`
`iformity among responses 0" pixe's to a
`
`a; outside the luminance interval as
`
`
`
`
`second degree 0: non—ur
`
`
`value 0:
`
`the image sigr
`
`required by claim 74,
`
`a
`
`
`uniformity among respor
`
`signal
`
`within a luminar
`
`
`
`
`
`nd similarly a 'ower degree 0“ non—
`
`SSS O
`
`
`: pixels to a value 0:
`
`the image
`
`ce in'
`
`I]
`
`:erval than among responses 0;
`
`
`
`
`pixels to a value 0: tr
`
`e image signal outside the luminance
`
`interval
`
`as required by claim 98.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/020,037
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Claim 99 depends from claim 98 and thus are patentable :or
`
`
`at least for the same reasons.
`
`
`
` Any comments considered necessary by PATENT OWN ER regarding
`
`the above statement must be submitted promptly to avoid
`
`processing delays.
`
`Such submission by the patent owner should
`
`be labeled:
`
`
`"Comments on Statement 0: Reasons
`
`
`for Patentability
`
`
`and/or Confirmation" and will be placed in the reexamination
`
` file.
`
`Conclusion
`
`ALL correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination
`
`proceeding should be directed as follows:
`
`Please mail any communications to:
`
`ail Stop "Ex Parte Reexam"
`Attn:
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`
`Commissioner for Ratents
`P. O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22313—1450
`
`
`
`Please FAX any communications to:
`
`(571) 273—9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Please hand—deliver any communications to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`
`Randolph Qui'ding, Lobby Level
`
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:
`
`90/020,037
`
`Page 20
`
`Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`By EFS —Web
`
`
`
`
`Registered users 0'
`1FS—Web may alternatively submit
`
`
`
`such correspondence via electronic ‘iling system EFS-Web,
`at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/myportal/efs—registered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EFS—Web o""ers the bene"it 0" quick submission to the
`
`
`
`particular area 03 the O""ice ,ha, needs to ac, on ,he
`
`
`correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are "soj,
`
`
`
`scanned" (i.e., e'ectronicaliy iploaded) direCtly into the
`
`
`
`
`
`o""icial ”ile "or
`the reexamination proceeding, which
`I)
`
`
`,0 review the content 0;
`0 "ers parties the oppor
`,unity
`
`"SO.
`their submissions ajter
`
`
`
`complete.
`
` ,he
`
`
`
`ft scanning" process is
`
`this communication or earlier
`
`Any inquiry concerning
`communications from the
`
`
`or as to
`,he status or
`the Central Reexamina
`:ion Unit at telephone number
`7705.
`
`
`
`?xaminer,
`Reexamination Legal
`
`should be direCted to
`272-
`(571)
`
`Advisor or
`
`,his proceeding,
`
`Signed:
`
`
` /iRON u SORK
`
`?xaminer,
`
`Primary
`
`jLL/
`
`Art Unit 3992
`
`Con
`
` ferees:
`
`/Joseph
`
`Primary
`
`%.r.i
` Ixaminer,
`
`Pokrzywa/
`C
`?U 3992
`
`/Daniel J Ryman/
`
`SJpervisory Patent
`
`Art Unit 3992
`
` ?xaminer,
`
`

`

`.
`
`.
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`_
`Adi/IIISOI'y Actlon
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit
`
`NA (First Inventor to
`Eric?) Status
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`THE PROPOSED RESPONSE FILED 22 November2013 FAILS TO OVERCOME ALL OF THE REJECTIONS IN
`THE FINAL REJECTION MAILED 20 September 2013.
`1. IZI Unless a timely appeal is filed, or other appropriate action by the patent owner is taken to overcome all of the
`outstanding rejection(s), this prosecution of the present ex parte reexamination proceeding WILL BE
`TERMINATED and a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate will be mailed in due course.
`
`Any finally rejected claims, or claims objected to, will be CANCELLED.
`THE PERIOD FOR RESPONSE IS EXTENDED TO RUN :1 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE FINAL REJECTION. Extensions of
`time are governed by 37 CFR 1.550( ).
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`to avoid dismissal of the
`2. E! An Appeal Brief is due two months from the date of the Notice of Appeal filed on
`appeal. See 37 CFR 41 .37(a). Extensions of time are governed by 37 CFR 1.550(c). See 37 CFR 41 .37( ).
`AMENDMENTS
`
`3. III The proposed amendment(s) filed after a final action, but prior to the date of filing a brief, wi|| n_ot be entered
`because:
`
`(a) |:| They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`(b) |:| They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);
`(c) |:| They are not deemed to place the proceeding in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the
`issues for appeal; and/or
`(d) |:| They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE:
`(See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41 .33( )).
`
`4. IXI Patent owner's proposed response filed 22 November2013 has overcome the following rejection(s):68—73 98 99 117
`and 118
`
`would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed
`5. [I The proposed new or amended claim(s)
`amendment canceling the non-allowable claim( ).
`
`6.
`
`IZI For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s) a)|:l will not be entered, or b)IZ will be entered and an
`explanation of how the new or amended claim(s) would be rejected is provided below or appended.
`The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`Claim(s) patentable and/or confirmed: 36 46 54 66 68-76 80 85-88 93 94 98-104 107 and 117-130
`Claim(s) objected to:
`Claim(s) rejected: 64 65 77-79 and 91
`Claim(s) not subject to reexamination: 1-35 37-45 47-53 55-63 83 84 89 90 95-97105 106 and 108-115
`AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`7. [I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`8. III The affidavit or other evidence filed after a final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal wi|| n_ot
`be entered because patent owner failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or
`other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 1.116( ).
`
`9. [I The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing a Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief,
`wi|| n_ot be entered because the affidavit or other evidence fails to overcome all rejections under appeal and/or
`appellant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is
`necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41 .33(d)( ).
`
`10. I] The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or
`aflached.
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER
`
`11. [I The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for
`allowance because:
`
`12. CI Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s), PTO/SB/O8, Paper No(s)
`
`13. I:I Other:
`
`.
`
`/ERON J SORRELL/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTO-467)
`
`Reexam Control No.
`
`PTOL-467 (Rev. 08-13)
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20131204
`
`