Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 2009

10856509 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2009)

1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOOH-CHOK LEE, LEN-LI KEVIN,
and RIZAL JAFFAR
____________

Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 May 19, 2009
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

2
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 21-32, 34, and 36-48. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Claims 21, 25, 30, 34, 36, and 37 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and are set forth below:
21. A method of backlighting a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD),
comprising:

producing a mixed bicolor light using a mixed bicolor light source
consisting only of a first discrete light source and a second discrete light
source, said first light source producing a first light of a first color having a
first set of tristimulus values associated therewith, said second light source
producing a second light of a second color different from the first color and
having a second set of tristimulus values associated therewith, the first and
second sets of tristimulus values being different from one another;

sensing the first light and the second light;

determining, on the basis of the sensed first and second lights, first
and second tristimulus values associated with the first and second lights,
respectively;

determining whether the first and second tristimulus values fall within
a reference range of tristimulus values; and

if at least one of the first and second tristimulus values falls outside
the reference range of tristimulus values, adjusting a luminance ratio
between said first light source and said second light source such that the
mixed bicolor light emitted by the first and second light sources falls within
the reference range of tristimulus values, and

backlighting the LCD with the adjusted mixed bicolor light.
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

3

25. The method of claim 24, wherein the white
light source is a cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL).

30. The method of claim 21, further comprising
configuring said reference range of tristimulus values as tristimulus values
falling within a predetermined area of a chromaticity diagram.

34. An apparatus for backlighting a Liquid Crystal
Display (LCD), comprising:

a mixed bicolor light source consisting only of a first discrete light
source and a second discrete light source, said first light source producing a
first light of a first color having a first set of tristimulus values associated
therewith, said second light source producing a second light of a second
color different from the first color and having a second set of tristimulus
values associated therewith, the first and second sets of tristimulus values
being different from one another, said mixed bicolor light source producing
mixed first and second lights;

a sensing system to sense the first light and the second light; and

a control system to i) determine, on the basis of the sensed first and
second lights, first and second sensed tristimulus values associated with the
sensed first and second lights, respectively; ii) determine whether the first
and second tristimulus values fall within a reference range of tristimulus
values, iii) if at least one of the first and second tristimulus values falls
outside the reference range of tristimulus values, adjust a luminance ratio
between said first light source and said second light source such that the
mixed bicolor light emitted by the first and second light sources falls within
the reference range of tristimulus values, the adjusted mixed bicolor light
being used to backlight the LCD.

36. The apparatus of claim 35, further comprising:

a computing system to i) display a graphical user interface (GUI) on
said liquid crystal display (LCD), said GUI prompting a user to define
parameters of images generated by said LCD, ii) derive a reference range of
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

4
tristimulus values from said parameters, and iii) provide the reference
range of tristimulus values to said control system.
37. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the control system uses fuzzy
feedback to determine whether said first and second tristimulus values fall
within said reference range of tristimulus values.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Campo 5,726,517 Mar. 3, 1998
Hawthorne 5,764,209 Jun. 9, 1998
Evanicky US 2003/0058202 Mar. 27, 2003
Johnson 6,608,614 Aug. 19, 2003
Ahn US 2004/0070966 Apr. 15, 2004

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We affirm.
THE REJECTIONS

1. Claims 21-24, 26-29, 34, 38, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) by Johnson.

2. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of
Ahn.

3. Claims 30-32, 39, and 40 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Johnson in view of Hawthorne.

4. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of
Evanicky.

5. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of
Campo.

Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

5
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that the claim recitation of “a first discrete light source and a second discrete
light source” does not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter from
that described by the applied art?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants’ Figure 4 depicts first and second light sources 404, 406 of
first and second colors. Figure 4 is described in paragraph [0023] of the
Specification. In paragraph [0010], the Specification discloses that the first
and second lights sources may be a white light source and a colored light
source. Also disclosed is that the white light source can take the form of a
CCFL or white “LEDs”, and the colored light source can take the form of
red “LEDs”.
Johnson defines his LED array as a plurality of “LEDs”. Col. 2, ll.
56-57 of Johnson. Johnson teaches, for example, that “[t]ogether, LEDs 18
provide light with a first chromaticity”. Col. 2, ll. 60-62 of Johnson.
Johnson shows a pair of LEDs (16, 30) in Figures 3-5. Johnson teaches that
the light of the first chromaticity and the light of the second chromaticity are
mixed within waveguide (20) to form a mixed light. Col. 3, ll. 25-33 of
Johnson.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

6
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Also, the USPTO must give claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. This means
that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the
plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification. In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
358 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on September
11, 2007. Appellants filed a Reply Brief on February 19, 2008. On page 1
of the Reply Brief, Appellants requested the Reply Brief be a Substitute
Brief. Hence, we refer to the Reply Brief throughout this decision.

1. The Rejection of claims 21-24, 26-29, 34, 38, 41, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) by Johnson

Appellants’ arguments involve the claimed phrase “a first discrete
light source and a second discrete light source” as recited in claims 21 and
34. Appellants assert that Johnson does not teach pairs of discrete LEDs
[emphasis added]. Reply Br. 52.
Hence, the issue before us is whether the LEDs of Johnson is a light
source within the meaning of Appellants’ claims in connection with the
claimed phrase “a first discrete light source and a second discrete light
source”.
Appellants argue that Johnson does not teach pairs of discrete LEDs.
Appellants assert that therefore Johnson does not teach pairs of discrete
LEDs where each LED produces light of a color different from the other, or
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

7
where the light output from two LEDs is mixed and subjected to
feedback control to cause the mixed light emitted thereby to fall within a
reference range of tristimulus values. Reply Br. 52.
Appellants assert that Johnson does not disclose the mixing of light
produced by discrete light sources (as opposed to arrays of LEDs), or mixing
light of anything less than three different colors. Reply Br. 52.
On page 54 of the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the presently
claimed invention requires that “two, and only two, discrete light sources of
two different colors be provided whose light outputs are mixed.”
The Examiner’s position is that Figs. 3-5 of the Johnson show a pair
of discrete LEDs (16, 30). With specific regard to the claimed phrase "a first
discrete light source and a second discrete light source", the Examiner states
“[a]s is well-known in the art of endeavor, light emitting diodes (LEDs) can
reasonably be considered a light source”. The Examiner concludes that the
first and second array taught by Johnson constitute each of the claimed first
and second discrete light sources, respectively. Ans. 9.
The Examiner finds that, as set forth in the Johnson Abstract, a first
LED array (16) provides light with a first chromaticity and a second LED
array (30) provides light with a second chromaticity. Ans. 9.
The Examiner finds that it is known in the art that different
chromaticities inherently entertain different tristimulus values. Ans. 9.
The Examiner finds that the light of the first chromaticity and the light
of the second chromaticity are then mixed within waveguide (20) to form a
mixed light. Col. 3, ll. 25-33 of Johnson. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

8
The Examiner finds that the luminance of each light source is
measured via photodiodes (76, 78) and processed in order to determine (66,
68, 88, 90) whether an adjustment (72, 92) is required to match a user
defined chromaticity of the assembly, which the Examiner considers
equivalent to the claimed reference range of tristimulus values. Ans. 9.
The Examiner explains that a feedback is established via the light
emission from light sources (16, 30), the measurement by said photodiodes,
the determination, and the adjustment. Ans. 9-10.
Appellants’ Figure 4 depicts first and second light sources 404, 406 of
first and second colors. Figure 4 is described in paragraph [0023] of the
Specification. In paragraph [0010], the Specification discloses that the first
and second light sources may be a white light source and a colored light
source. The white light source can take the form of a CCFL or white
“LEDs”, and the colored light source can take the form of red “LEDs”.
Hence, the claimed phrase “[a] first discrete light source and a second
discrete light source” is given its plain meaning. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at
321; Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 at 1373.
Appellants have not adequately explained how the “LEDs” as
described in their Specification are different from the “LEDs” of Johnson.
Johnson actually defines his LED array as a plurality of “LEDs”. Col. 2, ll.
56-57 of Johnson.
Furthermore, Appellants have not addressed how the manner in which
the LEDs are used in Johnson is different from a discrete light source in
view of Johnson’s disclosure, for example, that “[t]ogether, LEDs 18
provide light with a first chromaticity”. Col. 2, ll. 60-62 of Johnson.
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

9
Appellants have not explained why the LEDs of Johnson provide light
that cannot be considered a discrete light source versus how Appellants’
LEDs (as discribed in the Specification) provide light that can be considered
a discrete light source in view of the fact that both Appellants’ Specification
and Johnson describe “LEDS” that provide light (in other words, a source of
light, whether it be colored light or white light, etc.).
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner’s position
concerning the aspect of Appellants’ claims of “a first discrete light source
and a second discrete light source”. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that different chromaticities inherently entertain different tristimulus
values. We also agree with the Examiner’s position that light of the first
chromaticity and light of the second chromaticity are mixed within
waveguide (20) to form a mixed light (col. 3, ll. 25-33 of Johnson). We also
agree with the Examiner’s position that the luminance of each light source is
measured via photodiodes (76, 78) and processed in order to determine (66,
68, 88, 90) whether an adjustment (72, 92) is required to match a user
defined chromaticity of the assembly, considered to be equivalent to the
claimed reference range of tristimulus values.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 21-24, 26-29,
34, 38, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Johnson.

2. The Rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in
view of Ahn

Appellants argue that the combination of Johnson in view of Ahn does
not teach pairs of discrete LEDs, where each LED produces light of a color
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

10
different from the other, or where the light output from two LEDs is mixed
and subjected to feedback control to cause the mixed light emitted thereby to
fall within a reference range of tristimulus values. Appellants also assert
that the combination does not teach mixing of light produced by less than
three discrete light sources of three different colors. Reply Br. 55.
Appellants assert that Johnson and Ahn both do not recognize the
fundamental bicolor light theory underpinning of their present invention,
where light of two different colors only may be mixed to produce light
falling within a desired reference range of tristimulus values, and where the
two discrete light sources producing such light may be controlled to
consistently and efficiently produce a mixed light output having a consistent
color temperature. Appellants explain that bi-color light theory differs
substantially from tri-color theory, and involves special problems that are
discussed nowhere in Ahn. Reply Br. 56.
It is apparent from the above summary of Appellants’ arguments that
Appellants assert that Ahn does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Johnson.
We are not convinced by such argument because, as discussed supra,
we are in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis of the Johnson reference.
The Examiner relies upon Ahn for teaching the aspect of Appellants’ claim
25 directed to the light source being a cold cathode fluorescent lamp
(CCFL). Appellants do not dispute this teaching of Ahn in this regard.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of Ahn.
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

11
3. The Rejection of Claims 30-32, 39, and 40 are obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of Hawthorne
Again, Appellants repeat the alleged deficiencies of Johnson by
arguing that the combination of Johnson in view of Hawthorne does not
teach pairs of discrete LEDs, where each LED produces light of a color
different from the other, or where the light output from two LEDs is mixed
and subjected to feedback control to cause the mixed light emitted thereby to
fall within a reference range of tristimulus values. Appellants also assert
that the combination does not teach mixing of light produced by less than
three discrete light sources of three different colors. Reply Br. 61.
Appellants assert that the Johnson and Hawthorne references do not
recognize the fundamental bicolor light theory underpinning of their present
invention, where light of two different colors only may be mixed to produce
light falling within a desired reference range of tristimulus values, and where
the two discrete light sources producing such light may be controlled to
consistently and efficiently produce a mixed light output having a consistent
color temperature. Bi-color light theory differs substantially from tri-color
theory, and involves special problems that are discussed nowhere in the
Hawthorne reference. Reply Br. 62.
It is apparent from the above summary of Appellants’ arguments that
Appellants assert that Hawthorne does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Johnson.
We are not convinced by such argument because, as discussed supra,
we are in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis of Johnson. The
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

12
Examiner relied upon Hawthorne for teaching the aspect of
Appellants’ claims 30, 32, 39, and 40 directed to the use of a chromaticity
diagram or CIE tristimulus values. Appellants do not dispute these
teachings of Hawthorne in this regard.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 30-32, 39, and
40 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Johnson in view of Hawthorne.
4. The Rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in
view of Evanicky
Again, Appellants repeat the alleged deficiencies of Johnson by
arguing that the combination of Johnson in view of Evanicky does not teach
pairs of discrete LEDs, where each LED produces light of a color different
from the other, or where the light output from two LEDs is mixed and
subjected to feedback control to cause the mixed light emitted thereby to fall
within a reference range of tristimulus values. Reply Br. 67. Appellants
also assert that the combination does not teach mixing of light produced by
less than three discrete light sources of three different colors. Reply Br. 68.
Appellants argue that Johnson in view of Evanicky does not recognize
the fundamental bicolor light theory underpinning of their present invention,
where light of two different colors only may be mixed to produce light
falling within a desired reference range of tristimulus values, and where the
two discrete light sources producing such light may be controlled to
consistently and efficiently produce a mixed light output having a consistent
color temperature. Appellants explain that bi-color light theory differs
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

13
substantially from tri-color theory, and involves special problems that
are discussed nowhere in Evanicky. Reply Br. 68.
It is apparent from the above summary of Appellants’ arguments that
Appellants assert that Evanicky does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Johnson.
We are not convinced by such argument because, as discussed supra,
we are in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis of the Johnson reference.
The Examiner relied upon Evanicky for teaching the aspect of Appellants’
claim 36 involving the use of a graphical user interface (GUI). Appellants
do not dispute the teachings of Evanicky in this regard.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claim 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of Evanicky.
5. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of
Campo.
Again, Appellants repeat the alleged deficiencies of Johnson by
arguing that the combination of Johnson in view of Campo does not teach
pairs of discrete LEDs, where each LED produces light of a color different
from the other, or where the light output from two LEDs is mixed and
subjected to feedback control to cause the mixed light emitted thereby to fall
within a reference range of tristimulus values. Reply Br. 75. Appellants
also assert that the combination does not teach mixing of light produced by
less than three discrete light sources of three different colors. Reply Br. 75.
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

14
Appellants argue that the combination of Johnson in view of Campo
does not recognize the fundamental bicolor light theory underpinning the
present invention, where light of two different colors only may be mixed to
produce light falling within a desired reference range of tristimulus values,
and where the two discrete light sources producing such light may be
controlled to consistently and efficiently produce a mixed light output
having a consistent color temperature. Appellants explain that bi- color light
theory differs substantially from tri-color theory, and involves special
problems that are discussed nowhere in Campo. Reply Br. 76.
It is apparent from the above summary of Appellants’ arguments that
Appellants assert that Campo does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Johnson.
We are not convinced by such argument because, as discussed supra,
we are in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis of the Johnson reference.
The Examiner relied upon Campo for teaching the aspect of Appellants’
claim 37 involving the use of fuzzy feedback. Appellants do not dispute the
teachings of Campo in this regard.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claim 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Johnson in view of Campo.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding that the claim recitation of “a first discrete light source and a second
Appeal 2009-1678
Application 10/856,509

15
discrete light source” does not patentably distinguish the claimed
subject matter from that described by the applied art.

DECISION
Each of the rejections 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

PL Initial:
sld

KATHY MANKE
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
4380 ZIEGLER ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525