Ex Parte HsuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201512208033 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHUAN-CHIEN HSU ____________________ Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 7, 10–15, 17, 18, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The invention relates to a source driver for driving an LCD device (Spec. ¶¶ 1–6). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A source driver device for driving a display panel, the source driver device comprising: a gamma voltage generator having a storage element and a plurality of gamma digital-to-analog converters; a data digital-to-analog converter coupled to the gamma voltage generator; and a receiver configured to receive input display data from a data bus, and a plurality of gamma data signals during a vertical blanking time interval or a horizontal blanking time interval, parse the input display data to transmit generated display data to the data digital-to-analog converter, and store the plurality of gamma data signals into the storage element, wherein the gamma voltage generator, the data digital-to- analog converter and the receiver are formed with the source driver device as a single integrated circuit chip, Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 3 wherein each of the plurality of gamma digital-to-analog converters receive the plurality of gamma data signals from the storage element for generating a plurality of reference voltage signals based on the corresponding gamma data signals, and wherein the data digital-to-analog converter is coupled to the receiver and is configured to receive the generated display data, and generate a plurality of driving voltage signals according to the reference voltage signals and the generated display data for driving the display panel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kang Morgan Park Hashimoto Lin Tsuchi Hsu Lee US 2002/0063666 A1 US 2003/0076281 A1 US 6,977,647 B2 US 2006/0262059 A1 US 2007/0075951 A1 US 2008/0111840 A1 US 7,379,004 B2 US 2008/0143754 A1 May 30, 2002 Apr. 24, 2003 Dec. 20, 2005 Nov. 23, 2006 Apr. 5, 2007 May 15, 2008 May 27, 2008 June 19, 2008 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–4, 6, 13, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, and Hashimoto. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, Hashimoto, and Hsu. Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 4 Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, Hashimoto, and Lin. Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, Hashimoto, and Lee. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, Hashimoto, and Tsuchi. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, Hashimoto, and Park. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang, Morgan, Hashimoto, Tsuchi, and Park. ANALYSIS Regarding claim 1, Appellant contends: Nothing in Morgan discloses or suggests a source driver that receives gamma data signals during the vertical or horizontal blanking interval. Nor does the Action identify anything in Morgan that communicates to the person of ordinary skill in the art the possibility or the desirability of interchanging lighting control data and gamma data signals in its system or the system of Kang. Indeed, the Action’s rejection is built upon a faulty premise that lighting control data and gamma data signals are the same. (App. Br. 11–12.) Appellant further contends the Examiner’s proposed combination would render Kang inoperable, and that the combination fails to teach all the elements of claim 1 (App. Br. 12–14). Additionally, Appellant contends Morgan is non-analogous art (App. Br. 14). We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds Kang discloses receiving gamma data signals, and relies on Morgan solely for disclosing that it was known to receive data Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 5 during blanking intervals (Ans. 5–7). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument against Morgan individually—that Morgan does not disclose “a source driver that receives gamma data signals during the vertical or horizontal blanking interval” (App. Br. 11)—is not persuasive. Further, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In this case, Morgan discloses that it was known to send data during horizontal or vertical blanking intervals so it “does not interfere with the display on the screen” (Morgan, ¶ 337). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply Morgan’s technique of sending data during blanking intervals to Kang’s system so that the gamma data signals would be sent to Kang’s LCD device during blanking intervals (see Ans. 6–7, 15–16). Appellant has not shown that this would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art. Appellant’s arguments that the proposed combination would have been inoperable and does not teach all the limitations of claim 1 are also not persuasive. Specifically, Appellant argues that “replacing the gamma data of Kang with the lighting control data of Morgan would, in one stroke completely eliminate any picture on the Kang’s liquid crystal display” (App. Br. 13). Further, Appellant argues that even if the Examiner’s combination envisions supplementing Kang’s gamma data signals with Morgan’s lighting control data, the combination still results in Kang’s gamma data signals being sent in the way Kang originally discloses, i.e., not during blanking intervals (see App. Br. 13–14). However, these arguments misread the Examiner’s proposed combination, which is not to replace or supplement Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 6 Kang’s gamma data signals with Morgan’s lighting control data, but rather to send the gamma data signals during blanking intervals (see Ans. 6–7, 15– 16). That is, the Examiner’s combination does not change the data being received by Kang’s LCD device, but rather modifies how it is received. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s non-analogous art argument. The Examiner relies on Morgan’s broadly defined technique of sending data during blanking intervals (see Morgan, ¶ 337). Simply because Morgan’s data—i.e., lighting control data—is different data than that described in Appellant’s Specification—i.e., gamma data for generating gray levels in a display (see Spec. ¶ 5)—does not render Morgan non-analogous art. Rather, as discussed above, in view of KSR it would have been obvious to apply Morgan’s technique to Kang’s LCD device. Additionally, we note that Appellant has presented new arguments in the Reply Brief, for example, that “Kang does not teach or suggest the claimed approach of ‘a receiver configured to receive input display data . . . and a plurality of gamma data signals . . . , [and] parse the input display data to transmit generated display data’” (Reply Br. 6–7). However, any arguments that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief, but were not, are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010). We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–7, 10–15, 17, 18, and 21 not specifically argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–7, 10–15, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-011325 Application 12/208,033 7 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 10–15, 17, 18, and 21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation