Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

11593029 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111593,029 11/06/2006
9629 7590 02/19/2016
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ki Duk 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.
065543-5009 2844
EXAMINER
MENGISTU, AMARE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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 KI DUK KIM and JAE KYEONG YUN
Appeal2014-004445
Application 11/593,029
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004445
Application 11/593,029
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to improving display characteristics
on a liquid crystal display. (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A liquid crystal display, comprising:
a driver circuit configured to generate at least one liquid crystal
driving pulse and at least one backlight driving pulse, the liquid
crystal driving pulse including a normal data signal and a blanking
signal, the backlight driving pulse including an active signal and a
reference signal;
a backlight unit configured to generate light in response to the
backlight driving pulse; and
a liquid crystal panel configured to display an image having a
light transmittance that varies depending upon the liquid crystal
driving pulse and the backlight driving pulse,
wherein the reference signal is for turning on the backlight unit,
wherein the active signal and the reference signal are applied
at the same time during an active period, and
wherein the reference signal is only applied during a reference
period.
The Examiner's Rejections
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1--4, 6, 8-17, 19, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ozawa et al. (JP
2005-283735-A, published Oct. 13, 2005) (hereafter "Mitsubishi"), Okishiro
2
Appeal2014-004445
Application 11/593,029
et al. (US 2006/0208998, published Sept. 21, 2006), and Iba et al. (US
6,456,266 B 1, issued Sept. 24, 2002).
Claims 5, 7, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Mitsubishi, Okishiro, Iba, and
Numao (US 2004/0017348 Al, published Jan. 29, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mitsubishi,
Okishiro, and Iba teaches or suggests "an active signal and a reference
signal ... wherein the active signal and the reference signal are applied at
the same time during an active period, and wherein the reference signal is
only applied during a reference period" as recited in independent claim 1
and commensurately recited in independent claim 14?
The Examiner relies on the combination of Okishiro and Iba to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations. (Final Act. 4--7). Specifically, the
Examiner finds Okishiro 's blink signal and tube current teach or suggest the
claimed reference signal and active signal, respectively. (Final Act. 5---6
(citing Okishiro i-fi-19, 65, 78, Fig. 2); see also Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-3).
The Examiner finds the active signal (tube current) of Okishiro is applied to
the backlight (controlled by Okishiro 's blink signal) while the backlight is
turned on. (Final Act. 2-3, 5---6; Ans. 3--4). Because Okishiro's blink signal
turns the back light on and off, the Examiner relies on Iba to teach or suggest
applying the reference signal during both the active period and reference
period. (Final Act. 2-3, 6-7; Ans. 4--5). Specifically, the Examiner finds
Iba teaches or suggests that the backlight may be operated so that it is
always turned on. (Final Act. 6 (citing Iba col. 5, 11. 4--27); Ans. 4--5). The
3
Appeal2014-004445
Application 11/593,029
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Okishiro's blink signal to tum on at all times. (Final Act. 4, 6-7).
Appellants contend Okishiro' s tube current is not related to the active
signal because the blink signal is the inverted signal of the tube current. (Br.
6). As such, Appellants argue the tube current is related to the claimed
reference signal, so there is no signal relating to the active signal in
Okishiro. (Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that as shown in Figures 2 and 7, the tube current taught in
Okishiro is not the inverted signal of the blink signal. (Ans. 2). Rather, in
both Figures 2 and 7 the blink signal is shown as a simple square wave,
while the tube current is not a simple square wave. (Ans. 2).
Appellants further contend Okishiro' s blink signal as shown in Figure
2 is not "on" during an active period. (Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they do not
specifically address the Examiner's findings. As the Examiner explains,
paragraph 10 of Okishiro describes the blink signal as being "on" between
times TO and T 1 where the signal is at a low level, and being "off' between
times Tl and T2 where the signal is at a high level. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds because the blink signal is labeled as "on" during the
low voltage state in Figure 2, it is considered to be an active-low type of
signal that is considered to be "on" when it is in the low voltage stage. (Ans.
3--4 ). Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings.
Moreover, we note the combination of Okishiro and Iba teaches or suggests
the blink signal is always on, during both an active period and a reference
period. (See Final Act. 4, 6-7).
4
Appeal2014-004445
Application 11/593,029
Finally, Appellants contend Iba does not teach or suggest a reference
signal. (Br. 8).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants are
simply attacking Iba in isolation, rather than as combined with Mitsubishi
and Okishiro. Nonobviousness "cannot be established by attacking
references individually" when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citation omitted). As discussed above, the Examiner relies upon
Okishiro to teach or suggest the reference signal and the combination of
Okishiro and Iba to teach or suggest "wherein the reference signal is only
applied during a reference period." (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 6-7).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claims 1 and 14. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 2-13 and 15-25. 1
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 is
affirmed.
1 In the Final Action, the Examiner asserted that "[c]laims 5, 7, 18, and, 20
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi,
Okishiro, and Iba as applied to claims 6 and 19 above, and further in view of
Numao." (Final Act. 10). Appellants point out that claims 5 and 18 do not
depend from claims 6 and 19, "so the Office Action's incorporation of the
subject matter of claims 6 and 19 is improper." (Br. 10). The Examiner
explained in the Answer that claims 5 and 18 were intended to be rejected
based on their dependence on claims 1 and 14, and such an omission was a
typographical error. (Ans. 5). We find this typographical error to be
harmless.
5
Appeal2014-004445
Application 11/593,029
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6