Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

12778641 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

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