Ex Parte Parsons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

12681768 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121925,059 10/12/2010 Steven Huynh
47713 7590 02/08/2016
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
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.
ACT-036 4895
EXAMINER
LUONG, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN HUYNH and CUONG VAN PHAM1
Appeal2014-004546
Application 12/925,059
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 8, 10---14, and 17-27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 Active-Semi, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004546
Application 12/925,059
Appellants claim an integrated circuit comprising a current-sensing
control circuit 80 that senses a plurality of current flows from a plurality of
strings of light emitting diodes 41--46 through a common inductor 5 3 and
thereby generates a current-sensing control signal which is received by a
switch control circuit for controlling a plurality of switches 71-7 6 coupled to
the plurality of strings of light emitting diodes (independent claim 1, Fig. 5).
Appellants also claim a corresponding system (independent claim 10) and
method (independent claim 19) that require an electrical arrangement or step
wherein currents flow from a plurality of strings of light emitting diodes
through a common inductor.
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An integrated circuit comprising:
a current-sensing control circuit that senses a plurality of current flows
from a plurality of strings of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) through a
common inductor and thereby generates a current-sensing control signal; and
a switch control circuit that receives the current-sensing control signal
and in response outputs a plurality of switch control signals, wherein each
switch control signal is used to control one of a plurality of switches coupled
to a corresponding one of the plurality of strings of LEDs, and wherein each
switch control signal alternatively controls an on time of each switch such
that an average current flowing across each string of LEDs is equal to a
target current value.
The Examiner rejects:
independent claims 1 and 10 as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11,
12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wibben et al. '472
(US 2010/0295472 Al, published Nov. 25, 2010) (hereinafter "Wibben
'472");
independent claim 19 as well as dependent claims 20, 21, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wibben '472; and
2
Appeal2014-004546
Application 12/925,059
remaining dependent claims 13, 14, 22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wibben '472 in combination with additional
prior art references.
In each of the above rejections, the Examiner finds that Wibben '472
discloses an integrated circuit, system, and method comprising the electrical
components and steps recited in the independent claims wherein a plurality
of currents flow from a plurality of strings of light emitting diodes through a
common inductor (Final Action 7 (regarding independent claim 1 ), 9
(regarding independent claim 10), and 11-12 (regarding independent claim
19)).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding is incorrect because, in
Wibben '4 72, current flows from the inductor to the plurality of light
emitting diodes (see, e.g., App. Br. 6-8 (regarding claim 1), 12-13
(regarding claim 10), and 18-20 (regarding claim 19)). Appellants'
argument is supported in the Appeal Brief by multiple citations to Wibben
'4 72 (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 16, 18 and i1i1 32 ("delivering the energy from
inductor 14 to an active output channel 18a-18n [containing light emitting
diodes]"), 77 ("Current supply subcomponent 1602 has voltage input 1604
connected to freewheel diode 1606 ... [which is] connected to ... inductor
1610 ... [which] is connected ... to output channels 1614a-1614n"), 88
("[output] channels [18a-18n] will share the current from inductor 14").
In response, the Examiner disagrees with Appellants' argument but
does not meaningfully address the citations to and discussions of Wibben
'4 72 which Appellants present in support of their contention that the
Examiner's finding is erroneous (Ans. 2-5). Nor does the Examiner explain
with any specific rationale why Wibben '4 72 is considered to disclose the
independent claim feature wherein currents flow from the plurality of strings
3
Appeal2014-004546
Application 12/925,059
of light emitting diodes to the common inductor (id.). Instead, the Examiner
states that the "appellant is trying to claim a specific component connection
structure with current flow direction but Wibben '4 72 anticipates the claim
limitation as 1610 [of Figure 18] is considered a common inductor in the
circuit" (id. at 2-3).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants provide detailed reasons why the
Answer, like the Final Action, does not contain support for the finding under
consideration (Reply Br. 4---6). Additionally, with regard to the Examiner's
above quoted statement, Appellants submit "it is improper for the examiner
to circumvent the law of anticipation by arguing that Wibben [' 472]
discloses a common inductor yet ignoring the recited direction of current
flow through that inductor" (id. at 6-7).
The record of this appeal well supports Appellants' position that
current flows from the inductor of Wibben '4 72 through the plurality of
strings of light emitting diodes rather than from the strings of light emitting
diodes through the inductor as found by the Examiner. Further, to the extent
the Examiner believes current flow direction is not relevant to this finding,
such a belief is contrary to established legal authority. "[U]nless a reference
discloses within the four comers of the document not only all of the
limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in
the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
Under the circumstances recounted above, we do not sustain any of
the § 102 or § 103 rejections advanced by the Examiner in this appeal.
4
Appeal2014-004546
Application 12/925,059
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5