Appeal No. 2005-0338
Application No. 10/003,840
Similarly, Helman teaches luminance adjusted to increase the luminance difference
between the foreground and the background and we find that Helman does not teach a
bias toward increasing or decreasing the brightness or the number of the pixels in
adjusting the luminance. (See column 4, lines 16-23). Thus, contrary to the examiner’s
assertion, we do not find that Helman’s adjustment of the chrominance and luminance
to teach or suggest reducing the number or intensity of bright pixels.
While we recognize that Reinhardt’s power reducing system is operational with
programs which do not identify “important pixels” we do not find that use of Reinhardt’s
system to display HTML documents, which have tags that set colors (such as disclosed
by Helman), teaches or suggests the claimed invention. As stated supra, Reinhardt
teaches reducing the power consumed by a display panel by adjusting the refresh rate
or frame rate of the panel. Helman discloses that the tags contain instructions relating
to the colors displayed and we find no disclosure that the tags contain data concerning
the refresh rate or frame rate of the display. This, if Reinhardt’s system were to operate
to reduce power in the display of a HTML document, the system would not be modifying
the tags or a parameter associated with the tags of the formatted information as is
claimed. Accordingly, we find that the combination of the references does not teach all
of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 23 and we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 37, 38 and 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhardt, in view of Helman.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007