11833059 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2013

11833059 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

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. 11/833,059 08/02/2007 Won-Bae JUNG 1398-151 (YPF 200607-0020 7210 66547 7590 11/18/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER MCMAHON, DANIEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/18/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WON-BAE JUNG and HYUNG WOOK JANG ____________ Appeal 2012-000781 Application 11/833,059 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 3-18. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2012-000781 Application 11/833,059 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is direct to detecting errors in a display driver integrated circuit for preventing abnormal phenomena in a display of a mobile device (Spec. 1:10-13). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for detecting errors in a display driver integrated circuit of a mobile device, said apparatus comprising: a memory of the display driver integrated circuit for storing control values for controlling a liquid crystal panel; an error detector of the display driver integrated circuit connected to the memory, the error detector checking the control values in the memory and outputting a detection result as check results; and a control unit of the mobile device directly connected to the error detector of the display driver integrated circuit to receive the detection result from the error detector as an interrupt signal, the control unit executing a re-initialization process for the memory when the detection result indicates that an error has occurred in the memory. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kudo (U.S. 2006/0033695 A1; Feb. 16, 2006), Johnson (U.S. 5,625,373; Apr. 29, 1997), and DeRuiter (U.S. 2003/0188219 A1; Oct. 2, 2003) (App. Br. 6-11). The Examiner rejected claims 7-10, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kudo, Johnson, DeRuiter, and Wang (U.S 2004/0049727 A1; Mar. 11, 2004) (App. Br. 11-14). Appeal 2012-000781 Application 11/833,059 3 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding the combination of Kudo, Johnson, and DeRuiter teaches or suggests all the limitations of Appellants’ claimed invention (Ans. 5-7). Appellants assert the combination of references does not disclose an error detector of a display driver integrated circuit connected to a memory of the display driver, and the error detector checking control values in the memory of the display driver integrated circuit (App. Br. 7). Particularly, Appellants assert the error detector and memory in Johnson are part of an error convergence system, not a display driver integrated circuit and thus, are separate from the drivers (App. Br. 7). Additionally, the combination of Kudo, Johnson, and DeRuiter may disclose flushing and reloading a memory of a control unit but does not disclose a control unit executing a re-initialization process for the memory of the display driver integrated circuit, as claimed (App. Br. 7-8). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. The Examiner finds Johnson “clearly teaches” the error detector of a display driver connected to a memory of a display driver integrated circuit as shown in Figure 3, elements 22, 24, and 28, of Johnson (Ans. 16). The Examiner also finds, although Johnson’s error convergence system is separate from the drivers as shown in Figure 2, Appellants’ reliance on this feature is not claimed (Ans. 17). The Examiner further finds Johnson discloses the error detector checks control values in the memory of the display driver integrated circuit (Ans. 5, 16-17). Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Appeal 2012-000781 Application 11/833,059 4 Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 418 (2007)). Particularly, the Examiner is relying on the combination of the teachings; whereas Appellants are arguing the references separately. For example, the Examiner relies on Kudo for teaching a display driver integrated circuit and Johnson for an error detector; however, Appellants argue Johnson does not teach or suggest a display driver integrated circuit. However, Johnson expressly discloses display driver mechanisms implemented as a series of integrated circuits (ICs) were known in the art (see, e.g., Johnson col. 1, ll. 36-37; col. 3, l. 1; col. 7, ll. 7- 9), contrary to Appellants assertion (App. Br. 7 Reply Br. 2-3). Therefore, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s proffered motivation to combine the references (Ans. 5-7, 18). Appellants contend independent claim 11 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 8). For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We conclude the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11. Appellants contend the Examiner’s Answer has failed to address the individual arguments presented for dependent claims 4-6 and 12-14 (Reply Br. 5).1 With respect to claims 3, 7, 9, 15, and 17, Appellants have provided no substantive arguments. Rather, Appellants contend these claims are allowable for the reason presented with respect to independent claims (App. 1 Appellants assert claim 3 is patentable by virtue of its dependence on claim 1 (App. Br. 11). Appeal 2012-000781 Application 11/833,059 5 Br. 11, 13). Thus, because we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 7, 9, 15, and 17. With respect to claims 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18, Appellants contend the references provided do not disclose the claimed elements (App. Br. 9-11 and 12-13). We agree the Examiner has not addressed Appellants contentions in the Answer (Ans. 18; Reply Br. 5). Thus, we conclude the Examiner is non-responsive and do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 17 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18 is reversed. 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-IN-PART ke