Ex Parte LO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2013

10250123 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHIH-YUEH LO and JYI-MAW HUNG
____________

Appeal 2010-004273
Application 10/250,123
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 13-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for controlling liquid
crystal displays (LCD) backlit by light emitting diodes (LED). See Spec.
Appeal 2010-004273
Application 10/250,123

2
¶¶ [0003], [0014]. Claim 13, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
13. An apparatus comprising a liquid crystal timing
control circuit and a back light driving device built in together,
wherein the liquid crystal timing control circuit is adapted for
controlling a liquid crystal timing under a specific timing period
to a liquid crystal panel, and the back light driving device
includes a function for providing a power with a constant
current to drive a plurality of light emitting diodes of a back
light source to provide light for the liquid crystal panel, wherein
the liquid crystal timing control circuit outputs a timing control
signal to the back light driving device for controlling the light
emitting diodes of the back light source.
Claims 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)1 as anticipated
by Sharples (US 4,959,642; issued Sept. 25, 1990). Ans. 3-4.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs and the
Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.

ISSUE
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants’ contentions is as follows:
Does Sharples disclose “[a] liquid crystal timing control circuit [that]
outputs a timing control signal to [a] back light driving device for
controlling . . . light emitting diodes of [a] back light source,” as recited in
claim 13?2

1 We note that Sharples is also prior art to Appellants’ application under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). That the Examiner chose to articulate the rejection
under § 102(e) instead of § 102(b) is of no significance.
2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. However, because we are
persuaded of error with respect to the identified issue, which is dispositive of
the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2010-004273
Application 10/250,123

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Sharples discloses all of the limitations of claim
13. Ans. 3-4 (citing Sharples, Figs. 1-3; col. 5, ll. 35-41). Appellants
contend that “Sharples fails to teach the limitation ‘wherein the liquid crystal
timing control circuit outputs a timing control signal to the back light driving
device for controlling the light emitting diodes of the back light source.’”
App. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds that “Sharples, Fig. 1 element 1 [sic; 10] elements
12, 18 and 28 element 12 provides the power and timing needed by both the
LCD driver as well as the LED circuit to drive the LCD panel and the LED
back lights.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains as follows:
[T]he [E]xaminer [takes] the position that the transmitter as
well as the LC driver is considered the LC controller and the
transmitter and the LED circuit drives the LEDs then it is very
clear that the transmitter which is part of the LC controller
outputs a timing control signal to the back light driving device.
Also it is noted that the [E]xaminer is equating the current
provided by the transmitter to the timing controller because it is
inherent that the timing control is part of the current provided to
the LED backlight in order for the LED backlight to operating
synchronously to the LC driver.
Ans. 6-7; see also Ans. 5 (“[T]he transmitter can be considered part of both
the LC timing control circuit as well as the backlight driving device.”).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s mapping of claim 13 to Sharples
results in Sharples’s transmitter 12 outputting a timing control signal to
itself. App. Br. 7. We agree and conclude that such a mapping effectively
reads the word “outputs” out of the claim.
Referring to Sharples’s Figure 1, the Examiner maps the recited
timing control signal to output current I, from transmitter 12, which Sharples
Appeal 2010-004273
Application 10/250,123

4
discloses is typically a 4-20 milliamp current indicative of the magnitude of
a process variable sensed by the transmitter. See Sharples, col. 1, ll. 13-31.
The Examiner reasons, see Ans. 4, 6-7, that because current I is provided by
transmitter 12 to both Sharples’s LED circuit 18 and Sharples’s LCD driver
28, it is output from the recited liquid crystal timing control circuit
(Sharples’s elements 12 and 28) to the recited backlight driving device
(Sharples’s elements 12 and 18). We leave aside the fact that the
Examiner’s mapping is incomplete, in that it omits Sharples’s sensing
resistor RS and A/D (analog to digital) converter 26. One of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the verb “outputs” recited in claim 13 to require
that the “timing control signal” be sent from the “liquid crystal timing
control circuit” to the “back light driving device,” and we so construe claim
13. However, as mapped by the Examiner, Sharples’s transmitter 12, which
generates the current I, forms a part of both the “backlight driving device”
and the “liquid crystal timing control circuit” so that current I is generated
within both the “backlight driving device” and the “liquid crystal timing
control circuit.” It therefore follows that current I, which the Examiner
maps to the “timing control signal” is not sent from (i.e., “output[]”) the
“liquid crystal timing control circuit” to the “back light driving device,”
since it already exists within the “back light driving device.”
Cf. Ans. 5.
For emphasis, we note that the Examiner has failed to establish that
Sharples’s current I (see Sharples, Fig. 1) is a timing control signal for the
backlight driving device or that Sharples discloses, explicitly or inherently,
that Sharples’s backlight LEDs D1, D2 (see Sharples, Fig. 2) are
synchronized with LCD 24. One of ordinary skill in the art would
Appeal 2010-004273
Application 10/250,123

5
understand that Sharples’s backlight LEDs are continuously illuminated (see
id., currents Id, I1) whenever the instrumentation loop is powered, and are not
coordinated or synchronized with the LCD 24, which turns liquid crystal
segments on and off in order to display the magnitude of the process variable
represented by variations in the 4-20 milliamp current I (see Sharples, col. 1,
l. 67—col. 2, l. 6). Indeed, Sharples’s circuit regulates the current through
the LEDs, protecting them from the variations in the 4-20 milliamp current I
(see Sharples, col. 1, ll. 49-55), which is the opposite of synchronizing them
with the LCD’s response to the variations of the current in the current loop.
Because Sharples’s LED circuit 18 provides power to meter 25, which
includes A/D converter 26, LCD driver 28, and LCD 24, meter 25 may be
powered when LEDs D1 and D2 are illuminated (see Sharples, Figs. 1, 2).
However, we conclude a claim construction of the recited “timing control
signal” that encompasses what is merely a power source for Sharples’s LED
circuit 18 is unreasonably broad.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Sharples does not disclose “[a]
liquid crystal timing control circuit [that] outputs a timing control signal to
[a] back light driving device for controlling . . . light emitting diodes of [a]
back light source,” as recited in claim 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of (1) claim 13; (2) independent claims 17, 21, and 22, which
were rejected on the same basis as claim 13 and include a limitation
substantially similar to the limitation we find to not be disclosed by
Sharples, and (3) claims 14-16 and 18-20, which depend from claims 13 and
17 respectively.

Appeal 2010-004273
Application 10/250,123

6
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc