Ex Parte Reznikov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2017

14103002 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2017)

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.
14/103,002 12/11/2013 Dmytro Yu Reznikov 6430-03600 1659
35690 7590 12/11/2017
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
ONYEKABA, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2017 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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DMYTRO YU REZNIKOV, MARK F. FLYNN,
and CHUN WUN YEUNG
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention operates a liquid crystal device by increasing a
voltage provided to the device over a time period greater than 1 millisecond
(ms). This voltage rise time, shown in Figure 8C, “softens” the waveform’s
ON-edge thus reducing or eliminating audible noise without compromising
system performance. See generally Abstract; Spec, 68,12—1 A. Claim 1
is reproduced below with our emphasis:
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
1. A method for operating a liquid crystal device,
comprising:
increasing a voltage provided to a driven level to a liquid
crystal addressable element of the liquid crystal device, wherein
said increasing is performed over a time period greater than 1
ms, and wherein the liquid crystal addressable element is in a
driven state at the driven level; and
reducing the provided voltage to a relaxed level, wherein
the liquid crystal addressable element is in a relaxed state at the
relaxed level;
wherein said increasing the voltage over the time period to
the driven level results in a reduced acoustical noise associated
with the provided voltage.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5—9, and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kwok (US 8,482,506 B2; July 9, 2013) and
Oh (US 2012/0133630 Al; May 31, 2012). Final Act. ^UlO.1
The Examiner rejected claims 2—A and 10—12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kwok, Oh, and Jalbout (US 2010/0231699
Al; Sept. 16,2010). Final Act. 10-12.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KWOK AND OH
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kwok
operates a liquid crystal device by increasing a voltage provided to a driven
level to a liquid crystal addressable element over a time period greater than 1
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March
31, 2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 29, 2016 (“App.
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 13, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed February 8, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
ms. Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, Kwok’s Figure 7 shows a
“Period A” corresponding to increasing induced voltage with a rise time of
1.25 ms/division (div). Ans. 3^4. Although the Examiner acknowledges
that Kwok’s voltage increase does not reduce acoustical noise, the Examiner
cites Oh as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Kwok’s curve 702 in Figure 7 includes (1) a
nearly instantaneous increase from a first to a second voltage, (2) a dwell at
the second voltage, and (3) a nearly instantaneous decrease to a third
voltage. App. Br. 5—6. According to Appellants, the Examiner’s finding
that a portion of a square wave (e.g., “Period A”) in Kwok includes a voltage
rise time greater than 1 ms interprets the reference unreasonably broadly.
Reply Br. 2—3.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kwok and Oh
collectively would have taught or suggested increasing a voltage provided to
a driven level to a liquid crystal addressable element over a time period
greater than 1 ms as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the secondary
reference to Oh is undisputed, as is the cited references’ combinability.
Rather, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance on Kwok for
teaching the recited voltage increase time period. Therefore, we confine our
discussion to Kwok.
3
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
As noted above, a key aspect of the claimed invention is that voltage
is increased to a driven level over a time period greater than 1 ms. Our
emphasis underscores that the voltage increase must be greater than 1 ms—a
limitation that effectively specifies the minimum voltage rise time.
This voltage rise time is shown in Figure 8C of the present application
where the rise time “softens” the waveform’s ON-edge 600. See Spec.
11 68, 72. Notably, this “softening” can reduce or even eliminate audible
noise without compromising system performance. Id. H 68,12—1 A.
According to the Examiner, Kwok’s Figure 7 shows a “Period A”
corresponding to increasing induced voltage with a rise time of 1.25
ms/division (div). Ans. 2—A. The Examiner apparently bases this finding on
the third division of Figure 7’s top curve 702 whose voltage rise time is said
to span one-quarter of a 5 ms division, namely 1.25 ms. See Ans. 4. This
finding is shown on the Examiner’s annotated version of Kwok’s Figure 7
(Ans. 3) reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
“• A •.• '.••'•'SjOOr--:?'; So-
'"■if&iiagg.
S&£K*|i^§ S>f
EftUng c
Sf!
.w-*,■ \
m.i
i:ZSss^iy
Isif i
equsgg.
a,S^g;.;di¥
Examiner’s annotated version of Kwok’s Figure 7
On this record, the Examiner’s reliance on Kwok’s Figure 7 to show
increasing a voltage over a time period greater than 1 ms is problematic.
First, patent drawings are not drawn to scale and do not precisely define
relative proportions of the elements. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v.
Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But even
assuming, without deciding, that the portion of top curve 702 that the
Examiner labels as “Period A” is 1.25 ms as the Examiner surmises, that
period is not a rise time, nor does it show increasing a voltage over that time
period. Rather, the top curve’s “Period A” shows a nearly instantaneous
increase from a first voltage to a second voltage that is held for a short
period of time before dropping to a third lower voltage that the Examiner
5
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
labels as “Period B.” Accord App. Br. 6 (noting Kwok’s nearly
instantaneous voltage increase and subsequent dwell time in Figure 7).
Although there is a net increase in voltage in “Period A,” that increase
occurs nearly instantaneously at the beginning of that period. For the
remainder of “Period A,” however, a substantially constant voltage occurs,
albeit a voltage higher than the initial voltage. So although the voltage pulse
associated with “Period A” has a rise time, it is not 1.25 ms as the Examiner
finds, but rather much faster—indeed, nearly instantaneous. Therefore, this
voltage increase occurs nearly instantaneously—not over a period greater
than 1 ms as claimed.
To be sure, the Examiner cites the functionality of Kwok’s Figures 13,
16, and 17 in connection with dependent claim 5’s longer voltage-increase
time periods which, according to the Examiner, are 5.5 ms, 4.2 ms, and 3
ms. Final Act. 6; Ans. 6 (citing Kwok, col. 9,11. 55—65; col. 11,11. 50-65;
col. 12,11. 1—5). Although this functionality was not cited in the rejection of
claim 1, it is nevertheless cited in connection with the recited time period,
albeit for time periods greater than 2 ms. Still, we cannot say—nor has the
Examiner shown—that these times reasonably correspond to a period over
which voltage is increased, let alone that it would have been obvious to
lengthen the nearly instantaneous voltage increase in Kwok’s Figure 7 with
longer time periods, including the specified values. Accord App. Br. 10
(noting that the Examiner’s cited passages discuss voltage pulse duration
and width—not a period for increasing the voltage level). Therefore, to the
extent that the additional cited passages from Kwok in connection with the
time periods of claim 5 somehow also pertain to the rejection of claim 1, we
6
Appeal 2017-005180
Application 14/103,002
still find the Examiner’s reliance on Kwok problematic. Nor has the
Examiner shown that Oh cures those deficiencies.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and 17 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 5—8, 13—16, and 18—20
for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellants’
other associated arguments.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Because the Examiner has not shown that Jalbout cures the foregoing
deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 (see App.
Br. 8), we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2-4
and 10—12 (Final Act. 10—12) for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
7