11684335 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2014

11684335 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

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. 11/684,335 03/09/2007 Hyoung-Rae Kim 5649-1897 2567 20792 7590 03/31/2014 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER MARINELLI, PATRICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2014 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 HYOUNG-RAE KIM and DONG-YUL LEE ____________ Appeal 2011-008569 Application 11/684,335 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008569 Application 11/684,335 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to a method and apparatus for synchronous operation of display backlighting (see Spec. 2:27 – 3:3). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A method of controlling backlighting of a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) comprising: generating an on-time signal to activate a backlight for an LCD in synchronization with providing a frame of data to the LCD, wherein a plurality of data/control signals provided to an LCD driver IC by a processor circuit are free of the on-time signal provided by the LCD driver IC. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2002/0084973 A1). (See Ans. 4-6). Claims 16-18, 22, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hiraki (US 2005/0083280 A1). (See Ans. 6-9). Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Yoshihara (US 2008/0158141 A1). (See Ans. 10-12). Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi, Yoshihara, and Kim (US 2005/0140461 A1). (See Ans. 12-13). Appeal 2011-008569 Application 11/684,335 3 Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Sugino (US 2005/0259064 A1). (See Ans. 13-15). Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshihara and Sugino. (See Ans. 15-17). Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Praiswater (US 5,939,830). (See Ans. 17-19). Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiraki and Praiswater. (See Ans. 19). Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiraki and Choi. (See Ans. 20-21). Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiraki and Yoshihara. (See Ans. 21- 22). Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiraki, Choi, and Sugino. (See Ans. 22-23). Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiraki, Praiswater, and Yoshihara. (See Ans. 23-25). Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiraki, Choi, and Praiswater. (See Ans. 25-27). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. Appeal 2011-008569 Application 11/684,335 4 Claim 1 Appellants contend Choi does not disclose “a plurality of data/control signals provided to an LCD driver IC by a processor circuit are free of the on-time signal provided by the LCD driver IC,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8). Appellants specifically point to Figure 12 of Choi and assert data driver 202, which corresponds to the claimed LCD driver IC, does not provide signals to light source driver 206 for driving backlight 210 (App. Br. 9). The Examiner responds that the claimed “LCD driver IC” is met by both timing controller 208 and backlight controller 211 (Ans. 28). The Examiner points to paragraphs 68, 69, and 71 of Choi and further explains the signals sent to these controllers are free from the signal sent from the backlight controller to the light source driver (the on-time signal) provided by the controller (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the timing controller and the liquid source controller of Choi meet the disputed claim limitation. The Examiner has pointed to disclosure in Choi indicating a plurality of data/control signals inputted to an LCD driver IC (controllers 208 and 211 of Choi) by a processor (not shown) are free of the on-time signal provided by the LCD driver IC ((Vi to light source driver 206 for activating backlights 210). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that the description of the data signals and the control signal inputted to controller 208 in paragraph 63 of Choi indicates the signals provided to the controller include the on-time signal Vi (see Reply Br. 2). In fact, the cited paragraph of Choi shows the signal for activating the backlights is not included in the data/control signals inputted to the two Appeal 2011-008569 Application 11/684,335 5 controllers and instead, is generated by liquid source controller 211 and provided to light source driver 206 (see Choi, Fig. 12, ¶ [0063]). We also observe that Appellants’ Figure 2 shows data/control signal inputted to LCD driver which, in turn, provides the on-time signal PWM to the backlight driver (see also Spec. 6:13 – 7:4). Figure 12 of Choi shows similar input provided to controllers 208 and 211 which is free of a dedicated on-time signal used to control backlighting because this signal, namely Vi, is provided by liquid source controller 211 to light source driver 206. Claims 16-18 Appellants contend that nothing in Hiraki teaches or suggests “data/control signals provided to an LCD driver IC by a processor circuit are free of the on-time signal provided by the LCD driver IC,” as recited in claim 16 (App. Br. 10). We disagree and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion as our own. As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 28-29) and based on our discussion of claim 1, Hiraki discloses the disputed claimed feature as the data/control signals inputted to timing controller 10 that is free of the BLCON1-BLCON4 signals generated by the controller and provided to activate backlight driving circuit 20. Claim 13 Appellants present similar arguments with respect to the data/control signals inputted to the controllers shown in Yoshihara’s Figure 1 (App. Br. 12). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion (see Ans. 29) and adopt them as our own. Appeal 2011-008569 Application 11/684,335 6 Claim 14 Appellants present similar arguments with respect to the data/control signals inputted to the controllers shown in Figure 12 of Choi and assert that Praiswater does not disclose or suggest “providing an [sic] pulse modulation signal from an LCD driver IC to control a backlight” (App. Br. 13). We again agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to the proposed combination of Choi and Praiswater (see Ans. 30-31). CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that, because the cited references teach all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting the claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-29 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 kis