Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 16, 201211204188 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012) Copy Citation 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. 11/204,188 08/15/2005 Seok Woo Lee 10125-4206 2040 757 7590 05/16/2012 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER WALTHALL, ALLISON N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte SEOK WOO LEE and NAM HEE KIM _____________ Appeal 2010-009899 Application 11/204,188 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009899 Application 11/204,188 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and 48.1 An oral hearing was conducted on May 1, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for driving a liquid crystal display device. See Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for driving a liquid crystal display device, comprising: a liquid crystal panel including a plurality of gate lines and a plurality of data lines arranged perpendicularly to each other; a gate driver that supplies a gate pulse to the gate lines; and a data driver that samples an input N-bit digital data signal to generate an analog data voltage, generates a modulated data voltage according to an M-bit data value of the sampled digital data signal, mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form a mixed data voltage, and supplies the mixed data voltage to the data lines, wherein N and M are positive integers and M is smaller than or equal to N, and wherein the data driver includes, a shift register that generates a sampling signal; a latch that latches the N-bit digital data signal in response to the sampling signal and outputs the latched N-bit digital data signal in response to a data output enable signal (SOE); a digital/analog converter that converts the N-bit digital data signal from the latch into the analog data voltage; 1 Claims 5 and 32-46 were previously cancelled and claims 9, 12-19, 25, and 28-31 were previously withdrawn. Appeal 2010-009899 Application 11/204,188 3 a modulator that generates a modulated data voltage according to an M-bit data value of the sampled digital N-bit data signal from the latch; and a mixer that mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form the mixed data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to the data lines. REFERENCES Ikeda US 2001/0040548 A1 Nov. 15, 2001 Chiang US 2002/0063674 A1 May 30, 2002 Ham US 2003/0048246 A1 Mar. 13, 2003 Nakajima US 6,664,943 B1 Dec. 16, 2003 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 20-23 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ham. Ans. 4-5. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ham and Nakajima. Ans. 6-9. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ham, Nakajima, and Ikeda. Ans. 9- 10. 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, and 27 as provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-37 and 64-67 of copending Application No. 11/434,595. Ans. 3. This rejection is not at issue in this Appeal as the Examiner has indicated that Appellants will file a terminal disclaimer if and when the present and copending applications are allowed. Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-009899 Application 11/204,188 4 Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ham and Ikeda. Ans. 10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ham, Nakajima, and Chiang. Ans. 10-11. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ham and Chiang. Ans. 11. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Ham discloses a mixer that mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form the mixed data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to the data lines, as required by independent claims 1 and 20? ANALYSIS Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and 48. Claim 20 requires a mixer that mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form the mixed data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to the data lines. Claims 21-24, 26, 27, and 48 are dependent upon claim 20. Independent claim 1 contains a similar limitation. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 47 are dependent upon claim 1. Appellants argue that Ham does not disclose mixing the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form a mixed data voltage before it is outputted to the data lines. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner interprets the term “mixing two signals” as “applying them to the same line one after the other.” Ans. 12. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Ham teaches that applying the modulated voltage Appeal 2010-009899 Application 11/204,188 5 AMVD and the analog voltage normal RGB within the same frame creates a mixed signal. We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation and, as a result, with the Examiner’s finding. As correctly indicated by Appellants, the mixed data voltage must be a combination of the modulated data voltage and the analog data voltage, as required by the claim. We do not find, nor does the Examiner provide sufficient evidence to show, that supplying two voltages at separate times within a frame constitutes a mixed data voltage that is outputted to the data lines. Nakajima, Chiang, and Ikeda were not cited to teach or suggest mixing limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether these additional references cure the noted deficiencies. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and 48. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Ham discloses a mixer that mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form the mixed data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to the data lines, as required by independent claims 1 and 20. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and 48 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation