Ex Parte Baek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

10951693 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONG SANG BAEK and SUN YOUNG KWON
____________

Appeal 2011-006053
Application 10/951,693
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006053
Application 10/951,693

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-16, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. (App. Br. 3.)1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An Oral Hearing was held on September 5, 2013.
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns a liquid crystal display
driving apparatus and method for generating an image signal utilizing a
horizontal synchronizing signal and a dot clock. (Spec.¶¶ [0002]; [0011]-
[0012]; [0019]-[0022]; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A driving apparatus for a liquid crystal display,
comprising:
a liquid crystal display panel;
an image signal processor that extracts a complex
synchronizing signal and a first image signal from a complex
image signal;
an image signal generator that generates a second image
signal using a horizontal synchronizing signal and a dot clock;

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed June 30, 2010; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 24, 2010.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 29,
2010.
Appeal 2011-006053
Application 10/951,693

3
an input signal detector that counts pulses in the complex
synchronizing signal to decide whether the first image signal
from the image signal processor is provided to a data driver or
not, and generate a selection signal according to the result of
the counting;
an image signal selector that selectively outputs one of
the first image signal from the image signal processor and the
second image signal from the image signal generator in
response to the selection signal;
wherein the data driver applies the selected output image
signal to the liquid crystal display panel; and
a gate driver that drives a plurality of gate lines in the
liquid crystal display panel;
wherein the complex synchronizing signal is used for
generating a gate control signal to control the gate driver and a
data control signal to control the data driver.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,618,089 B1, issued Sep. 9, 2003
(“Tamayama”); U.S. Patent No. 5,790,096, issued Aug. 4, 1998 (“Hill”); and
U.S. Patent No. 5,153,574, issued Oct. 6, 1992 (“Kondo”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Tamayama, Hill, and Kondo collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) “an image signal generator that generates a second image signal using a
horizontal synchronizing signal and a dot clock;” (2) “an input signal
Appeal 2011-006053
Application 10/951,693

4
detector that counts pulses in the complex synchronizing signal to decide
whether the first image signal from the image signal processor is provided to
a data driver or not, and generate a selection signal according to the result of
the counting;” and (3) “an image signal selector that selectively outputs one
of the first image signal from the image signal processor and the second
image signal from the image signal generator in response to the selection
signal” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 7 and 11?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the portions of Tamayama and Kondo
identified by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the disputed features of
claim 1. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that Tamayama and Kondo
do not teach generating a second image signal utilizing a horizontal
synchronizing signal and a dot clock. (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 3-4.)
In particular, the portions of Tamayama cited by the Examiner (col. 3,
ll. 43-67; col. 6, ll. 13-20; col. 9, ll. 3-5; see Ans. 3-6, 8-12) do not describe
the recited second image signal. Rather, the cited portions of Tamayama
simply describe a video signal in accordance with the PAL standard which is
converted from still images stored in memory. (See Tamayama, col. 1, ll.
13-20; col. 3, l. 31 to col. 4, l. 16; col. 5, l. 40 to col. 6, l. 28; col. 8, l. 65 to
col. 9, l. 5.) Although Tamayama describes generating a video signal (by
converting still images read out of memory according to a timing signal),
there is no mention of extracting a first image (the NTSC video signal
(purported by the Examiner to be a first image signal)) or the timing signal
from “a complex image signal,” much less generating a second image signal
Appeal 2011-006053
Application 10/951,693

5
(the PAL video signal (purported by the Examiner to be the second image
signal)) utilizing the extracted timing signal. Both the NTSC (first signal)
and PAL (second signal) are generated / converted from still images read out
of memory, not from a complex image signal. Further, the Examiner cites
Kondo (col. 3, 11. 35-50; Fig 2A; see Ans. 6, 9-12) as describing a
horizontal synchronizing (Hsyc) signal and dot clock. Although Kondo does
describe utilizing Hsyc and the dot clock during signal generation, the
signals are utilized to generate the Y-axis and X-axis display areas (the
boundaries of the display). (See Kondo, col. 4, ll. 10-24.) Even if we were
to interpret Kondo’s disclosure as utilizing the Hsyc and the dot clock to
generate an image signal, the Examiner does not explain how the signal
generation of Kondo could be combined with Tamayama. Instead, the
Examiner merely asserts that this combination “would have been obvious”
(Ans. 6, 10) and is “well known in the art” (Ans. 9). We disagree with the
Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness.
We note that Appellants’ claim (claim 1 and also claim 11) recites a
device or machine, “a driving apparatus,” and that the disputed features are
functional in nature. Thus, we find the disputed limitations are essentially
contained in a statement of intended use or purpose. Such statements of
intended use “usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such
statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention
operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, the prior art structure must
be capable of performing the intended use in order to render a claim
limitation obvious. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it
Appeal 2011-006053
Application 10/951,693

6
meets the claim limitation). In this instance, the cited portions of Tamayama
and Kondo do not describe a structure capable of performing Appellants’
recited functionality.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that the combination of Tamayama and Kondo fails to teach or suggest the
recited features of claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Independent claims 7 and 11 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-16
depend on and stand with their respective base claims. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-16.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED

llw