Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201612778641 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121778,641 05/12/2010 9629 7590 05/18/2016 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sunyoung Kim 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 065543-5180 6822 EXAMINER LI, LIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 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): patents@morganlewis.com karen.catalano@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNYOUNG KIM, KIDUK KIM, SUNHW A LEE, and BYOUNGGW AN LEE Appeal2014-009956 Application 12/778,641 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-009956 Application 12/778,641 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application "relates to a liquid crystal display, and more particularly to a liquid crystal display capable of improving a motion picture response time (MPRT) performance." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A liquid crystal display comprising: a liquid crystal display panel that is divided into a first display surface and a second display surface including data lines and gate lines; a first data driving circuit configured to drive data lines of the first display surface; a second data driving circuit configured to drive data lines of the second display surface; a gate driving circuit configured to sequentially supply a gate pulse for scanning the first display surface to gate lines of the first display surface and sequentially supply a gate pulse for scanning the second display surface to gate lines of the second display surface; a timing controller configured to divide a unit frame period into a first sub-frame period and a second sub-frame period, and configured to copy an input data to generate a copied data; a backlight unit configured to provide light to the liquid crystal display panel wherein the backlight unit includes a plurality of light sources; and a light source driving circuit configured to tum off simultaneously all the plurality of light sources during the first sub-frame period and tum on simultaneously all the plurality of light sources at a tum-on time within the second sub-frame period, wherein the input data is displayed on the first and second display surfaces during the first sub-frame period, and the copied data equal to the input data is displayed on the first and second display surfaces during the second sub-frame period, 2 Appeal2014-009956 Application 12/778,641 wherein the tum-on time of all the plurality of light sources is set based on one of saturation time of liquid crystals in a middle portion of the first display surface and saturation time of liquid crystals in a middle portion of the second display surface, and wherein the timing controller synchronizes the input data and the copied data with a frame frequency of (unit frame frequency)xN to repeatedly display the input data and the copied data on the liquid crystal display panel during the first and second sub-frame periods for reducing a difference between the tum-on time of the light sources and the saturation time of the liquid crystals, where N is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2. App. Br. 16-17. REJECTIONS Claims 1-10 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Hiraki, 1 Ahn, 2 Honbo, 3 Masuda, 4 Ilyanok,5 Wang,6 Matsuda,7 Lee,8 Takatori, 9 and Margulis10 . Final Act. 2- 39. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. In 1 Hiraki (US 2006/0238486 Al; published Oct. 26, 2006). 2 Ahn (US 2007/0152951 Al; published July 5, 2007). 3 Honbo et al. (US 2008/0018587 Al; published Jan. 24, 2008). 4 Masuda (US 2009/0267879 Al; published Oct. 29, 2009). 5 Ilyanok (US 2004/0257302 Al; published Dec. 23, 2004). 6 Wang (US 2009/0224678 Al; published Sept. 10, 2009). 7 Matsuda et al. (US 2004/0251854 Al; published Dec. 16, 2004). 8 Lee (US 2008/0239204 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008). 9 Takatori (US 2008/0158140 Al; published July 3, 2008). 10 Margulis (US 2007/0035707 Al; published Feb. 15, 2007). 3 Appeal2014-009956 Application 12/778,641 particular, we agree with Appellants the Examiner has not demonstrated that the cited prior art, either singularly or in combination, teaches or suggests the following limitation recited in claim 1: wherein the tum-on time of all the plurality of light sources is set based on one of saturation time of liquid crystals in a middle portion of the first display surface and saturation time of liquid crystals in a middle portion of the second display surface. App. Br. 17. With respect to this limitation, the Examiner finds Ahn' s alignment saturation time ("ASP") for the third subsections A3 and B3 of its liquid crystal panel teaches "one of saturation time of liquid crystals in a middle portion of the first display surface and saturation time of liquid crystals in a middle portion of the second display surface." Final Act. 7 (citing Ahn Fig. lOB, i-f 122); see Ans. 8-9. The Examiner further finds Ahn's shortening of the light irradiation period ("LEP") according to an amount of brightness in subsections A3 and B3 teaches "adjusting the saturation time." Final Act. 8 (citing Ahn i-f 122). According to the Examiner, Ahn's "turning on time of the light sources and[] saturation time of the liquid crystal can be adjusted." Ans. 14. Additionally, the Examiner finds Masuda teaches or suggests the limitation at issue by teaching that object colors have (1) low saturation in extremely high and extremely low luminance display regions, and (2) high saturation in a middle luminance display region. See Final Act. 17 (citing Masuda Figs. 5A-5C, i-fi-112-13). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because neither Ahn nor Masuda teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. See Reply Br. 2---6; App. Br. 8-14. With respect to Ahn, Appellants argue that only the LEP for sub- sections A3 and B3-not the LEP of all the plurality of light sources-may 4 Appeal2014-009956 Application 12/778,641 be shortened according to an amount of brightness in sub-sections A3 and B3. See App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants point out that some of Ahn's lamps (i.e., light sources) are controlled based on subsections other than A3 and B3. See Reply Br. 3-5 (citing Ahn i-fi-f 120-23). Accordingly, Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Ahn does not teach or suggest setting the LEP of all the plurality of light sources for all the subsections (i.e., Al-A4 and Bl-B4) based on the ASP of subsection A3 or B3. See App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellants additionally contend Masuda's color saturation/lightness scheme, wherein "object colors have various saturations depending on whether they are in a high or low lightness display region, and [] a kind of light-emitting element [is selected] to emit light depending on whether an image has high saturation," does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. See App. Br. 13-14. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. As argued by Appellants, the Examiner has not demonstrated that cited portions of Ahn teach or suggest setting the LEP of all the plurality of light sources for all the subsections (i.e., Al-A4 and Bl-B4) based on the ASP of subsection A3 or B3. See Final Act. 7, 14; Reply Br. 2-5. Nor has the Examiner demonstrated how ( 1) Masuda' s color saturation/lightness scheme or (2) the remaining prior art of record teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of independent claim 1, independent claim 16, which recites a similar limitation, and dependent claims 2-10, 12- 15, and 17-20. See App. Br. 17-21. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-20. 5 Appeal2014-009956 Application 12/778,641 REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation