10121128 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Ito

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 13, 2012

10121128 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MASAHIRO ITO ____________________ Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 18-20, 23-25, 28-31, 34, and 38-40. Claims 1-17, 21, 22, 26, 27, 32, 33, and 35-37 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm. The claims are directed to a gray-scale voltage producing method, gray-scale voltage producing circuit, and liquid crystal display device. Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 18. A gray-scale voltage producing method for producing a plurality of gray-scale voltages to display an image by providing a gray level of luminance to a liquid crystal display device, said method comprising: converting a plurality of digital data corresponding to a voltage difference between two gray-scale voltages into a plurality of analog voltages; producing said plurality of said gray-scale voltages by performing operational calculation on at least two of said analog voltages and at least one reference voltage; wherein a first portion of said plurality of said gray-scale voltages has a positive polarity in reference to said at least one reference voltage; and a second portion of said plurality of said gray-scale voltages has a negative polarity in reference to said at least one reference voltage. Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 3 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kurihara US 5,854,627 Dec. 29, 1998 REJECTION Claims 18-20, 23-25, 28-31, 34, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art, (AAPA) and Kurihara. PRINCIPLES OF LAW "What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103." KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be "more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id. at 417. Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention. Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in KSR, 550 U.S. at 406, 415, 427). Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 4 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding representative claim 18: Under §103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of AAPA and Kurihara would have taught or suggested: [L1] converting a plurality of digital data corresponding to a voltage difference between two gray-scale voltages into a plurality of analog voltages; [L2] producing said plurality of said gray-scale voltages by performing operational calculation on at least two of said analog voltages and at least one reference voltage; within the meaning of representative claim 18? (Note: disputed limitations are labeled as L1 and L2). First Disputed Limitation (L1) Based upon our review of the record, we find the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the combination of AAPA and Kurihara would have taught or suggested: converting a plurality of digital data corresponding to a voltage difference between two gray-scale voltages into a plurality of analog voltages, within the meaning of representative claim 18. Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 5 In particular, we observe that page 4 of AAPA describes the operation of gray-scale voltage producing circuit 3 (as depicted in Figures 7 and 8 of Appellant’s Specification): The gray-scale voltage producing circuit 3 is made up of one chip of an LSI (Large Scale Integrated Circuit) including an interface circuit 11, digital-analog converters (DACs) 121 to 128 , and buffer amplifiers 131 to 138. The interface circuit 11 has a DAC selected based on address information making up gray-scale voltage setting data DG supplied from an external latch voltage value data making up gray-scale voltage setting data DG. Each of the DACs 121 to 128 converts voltage value data being latched by each of the DACs 121 to 128 into an analog voltage and outputs the converted voltage. (AAPA: Spec. 4, ll. 1-10, emphasis added). Thus, we find at least AAPA would have taught or suggested using DACs to convert a plurality of digital data (voltage value data) corresponding to a voltage difference between two gray-scale voltages (gray-scale voltage producing circuit 3 inputs digital data DG where successive digital data values (differences) are converted into changing gray-scale analog voltages) into a plurality of analog voltages, within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 18. (Id.). We note that any change in the gray-scale digital data values necessarily reflects a difference between two corresponding gray-scale analog voltage values. Therefore, on this record, we are in accord with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 6 ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding disputed limitation L1.1 (Ans. 5, 8-9). Second Disputed Limitation (L2) Based upon our review of the record, we find the evidence also supports the Examiner’s finding that the combination of AAPA and Kurihara would have taught or suggested: producing said plurality of said gray-scale voltages by performing operational calculation on at least two of said analog voltages and at least one reference voltage, within the meaning of representative claim 18. In particular, we observe that column 7 of Kurihara describes two voltages (of negative and positive polarity) and two associated operational calculations (addition, subtraction), that are performed with respect to a reference voltage: The embodiment of FIG. 2 and 3 represents a case where the voltage applied to the liquid crystal is of negative polarity and where the voltage shift is added to the reference voltage. When, however, the voltage to be applied to the liquid crystal has a positive polarity, the reference voltage minus the voltage shift is the one actually applied to the liquid crystal layer, so that two kinds of grayscale reference voltage generation circuit need be provided-positive polarity and negative polarity circuit. (Kurihara, col. 7, ll. 28-36). Thus, we find at least Kurihara would have taught or suggested producing said plurality of said gray-scale voltages (positive and negative) 1 “If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR 550 U.S. at 419. Appeal 2010-001507 Application 10/121,128 7 by performing operational calculation (addition and subtraction) on at least two of said analog voltages and at least one reference voltage, within the meaning of representative claim 18. (Id.). Therefore, on this record, we are also in accord with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding disputed limitation L2.2 (Ans. 5, 8-9). Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 5, 8-9), as discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of representative claim 18 over the combination of AAPA and Kurihara. Claims 19, 20, 23-25, 28-31, 34, and 38-40 (not argued separately) fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claims 18-20, 23-25, 28-31, 34, and 38-40. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl 2 See n.1 supra.