13522115 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

Ex Parte Fujiwara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 2017

13522115 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/522,115 07/13/2012 Kohji Fujiwara 70404.1130/sa 5628 54072 7590 02/21/2017 SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive SUITE 200 Reston, VA 20191 EXAMINER LI, LIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM u spto @ kbiplaw. com epreston @ kbiplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOHJI FUJIWARA and TAKAYUKI MURAI1 Appeal 2016-006969 Application 13/522,115 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1 and 8—16. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 19, 2016, “App. Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed July 5, 2016, “Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 13, 2016, “Ans.”); the Final Action (mailed July 21, 2015, “Final Act.”); and the Specification (filed July 13, 2012, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2016-006969 Application 13/522,115 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a light-emitting device. See Abstract. INVENTION Claim 1 is the only independent claim pending. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A light emitting device for image display, for incorporation in an image display device for display of an image based on image data, the light emitting device comprising: a light emitter which is divided into a plurality of areas and which includes a plurality of light emitting elements corresponding to the areas respectively; a power calculator configured to calculate light emission electric powers to be supplied to the light emitting elements respectively based on the image data on an area-by-area basis; and a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature; wherein the light emitter is configured to emit light used in the display of the image by supplying the light emission electric powers to the light emitting elements respectively according to a result of the calculation; the power calculator is configured to: perform the calculation such that a sum of the total light emission electric power does not exceed a power limit value; update the power limit value according to a result of detection by the temperature sensor; and periodically perform an updating operation to update the power limit value based on the result of detection by the temperature sensor. 2 Appeal 2016-006969 Application 13/522,115 References and Rejections Tanizoe, et al. US 2006/0221047 A1 Oct. 5, 2006 Iwakura, et al. US 2010/0321581 Al Nov. 26, 2007 (filed) The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.3 Final Act. 3^4. 2. Claims 1, 5,4 9, and 11—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanizoe. Final Act. 4—13. 3. Claims 8, 10, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanizoe and Iwakura. Final Act. 13—17. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1 and 8—16 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 3—13. Claim 1: Written Description Claim 1 recites “periodically perform an updating operation . . . .” The Examiner finds the Specification fails to describe the term “periodically.” Final Act. 3. Appellants cite Specification paragraphs 81, 3 The rejection of Claim 5 was withdrawn in view of its cancellation. 4 See Footnote 3, supra. 3 Appeal 2016-006969 Application 13/522,115 82, 97, and 98 as supporting the disputed recitation. App. Br. 5. We agree with Appellants. Appellants disclose: With predetermined timing, the limit value updating circuit 45 executes an operation (hereinafter referred to as the “updating operation” for convenience’ sake) for effecting the updating. This may be done with any timing, for example, every time one or more frames of image data is acquired, or at regular time intervals. Spec. I 81. We find this disclosure provides the required written description support for the claimed “periodically.” Claims 1 and 8-16: Obviousness over Tanizoe or Tanizoe in view of Iwakura Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 13. Appellants contend Tanizoe fails to teach “a sum of the total light emission electric powers does not exceed a power limit value,” as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds Tanizoe teaches a PWM controller, including feedback means, which calculates and adjusts power to an electrical power limit. Final Act. 5 (citing Tanizoe, 1 63; Figures 1—3). Appellants contend the cited portions of Tanizoe teach a display device wherein a feedback control means drives red, green, and blue light- emitting diodes (FED) by using a pulse width modulation (PWM) controller. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue Tanizoe’s PWM controller compares the output of a light sensor and a temperature sensor against the output of a brightness-setting means and a color-setting means. Id. (citing Tanizoe 11 63 and 64). Appellants argue the duty ratio of the PWM driving means is adjusted only to achieve a target luminescence value, but does not relate to 4 Appeal 2016-006969 Application 13/522,115 control a total light emission electric power to remain below a pre determined sum, as claimed. Id. at 9. The Examiner cites to multiple portions of Tanizoe, including: the Abstract, paragraphs 11, 17, 19, 24, 57, 63, 100, and Figures 1, 4, 8, and 9. Ans. 5—8. We fail to find any teaching in the cited passages that relates to a pre-determined sum of light-emission electric power. DECISION The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is REVERSED. The rejection of Claims 1 and 8—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5