Ex Parte Price et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2014

11554701 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2014)

MOD PTOL-90A (Rev.06/08)

APPLICATION
NO.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
11/554,701 10/31/2006 Erin L. Price et al DC-11636
EXAMINER
HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP

P.O. BOX 203518

AUSTIN, TX 78720
ABDIN, SHAHEDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

08/14/2014 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.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Address : COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIN L. PRICE and GUANGYONG ZHU

____________

Appeal 2011-011924
Application 11/554,701
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHHNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011924
Application 11/554,701

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to automatically identifying
and compensating for LED failures. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An information handling system comprising:
plural processing components operable to generate visual
information;
a display interfaced with the processing components and
operable to generate a visual image from the visual information;
an LED backlight operable to illuminate the visual
image, the LED backlight having plural LEDs;
an LED power regulator operable to provide power to
illuminate the LEDS;
an LED controller interfaced with the LED power
regulator, the LED controller operable to manage the power
provided by the LED power regulator to the LEDs;
and an LED monitor interfaced with the LED controller
and the LEDs, the LED monitor operable to analyze voltage
between the LEDs termination and ground to determine LED
faults.

Appeal 2011-011924
Application 11/554,701

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–11, 13, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Weindorf (US 7,262,752 B1; Aug. 28,
2007).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Weindorf.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Weindorf in view of Burke (US 6,825,828
B2; Nov. 30, 2004).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Weindorf
teaches the limitation of “LED monitor operable to analyze voltage between
the LEDs termination and ground to determine LED faults,” as recited in
claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–11, 13, and 17–20
Appellants argue that Weindorf fails to teach or suggest an
LED monitor that analyzes “voltage between the LEDs termination and
ground to determine LED fault” (App. Br. 3). Appellants do not contest that
Weindorf’s current monitor 120 measures voltage between the LED
termination and ground, but they argue that the measured voltage is used to
increase power in the event of an open circuit, and not to determine fault as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-011924
Application 11/554,701

4
We do not agree. Weindorf explicitly teaches that “[w]hen an LED
116 fails that causes an open circuit in the LED series circuit, either by an
LED bum-out or an open circuit, or a solder joint failure, the current flow
signal from the current monitor 120 indicates that an open circuit has
occurred” (emphases added) (col. 5, ll. 6–10). Thus, the current monitor
120 determines LED fault by indicating when the open circuit occurred.
Furthermore, Weindorf teaches that the “current monitor 120 may be a
resistor connected between the series LEDs and ground. The signal from
the current sampling circuit may be the voltage drop across the resistor”
(emphases added) (col. 5, ll. 2–5). Accordingly, Weindorf teaches
determining a voltage drop to determine LED fault.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1. Appellants
make similar arguments for claims 9 and 17 (App. Br. 3–4). Accordingly,
we also affirm claims 9 and 17. We also affirm the rejections of claims 2–8,
10–11, 13, and 18–20 which were not separately argued.
Claims 12 and 14–16
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12 and 14–16, which
were not separately argued, for the same reasons as those articulated supra.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Weindorf teaches the
limitation of “LED monitor operable to analyze voltage between the LEDs
termination and ground to determine LED faults,” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-011924
Application 11/554,701

5
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

kme