Appeal 2007-0831
Application 10/417,656
Appellants contend that the motivation or suggestion to combine the
teachings of Smith and Ranganathan comes not from the references but from
Appellants’ own disclosure (Br. 8; Reply Br. 2).
We will sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 24.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner resort to impermissible hindsight reconstruction
to demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed subject matter?
2. Do the references teach reducing the resolution of an entire image?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants describe a system and method for “monitoring the state of
a computing device associated with the display, determining if pixel
reduction is warranted in view of the monitoring, and, if pixel reduction is
warranted, displaying a reduced-pixel, whole image that comprises fewer
active pixels than an original, complete image previously presented in the
display” (Specification 2). According to Appellants, “displaying reduced
pixel images is advantageous not only from a power conservation standpoint
but also from a user feedback standpoint” (Specification 11).
Smith recognizes the power requirements of a display screen on a
portable computing device, and describes a power management scheme to
conserve battery power (col. 2, ll. 7 to 36). Smith is silent as to “displaying
a reduced-pixel, whole image that comprises fewer active pixels than an
original, complete image previously presented in the display.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013