Ex Parte Sakai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

12466408 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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.
12/466,408 05/15/2009 Shiun SAKAI S1459.71565US00 5808
23628 7590 03/16/2017
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210-2206
EXAMINER
YANG, KWANG-SU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
W GS_eOffice Action @ W olfGreenfield .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIUN SAKAI
Appeal 2016-007873
Application 12/466,408
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-007873
Application 12/466,408
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application “relates to a liquid crystal display
apparatus and a method for controlling the liquid crystal display apparatus.”
Spec. 1:2—4. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A liquid crystal display apparatus comprising:
a liquid crystal display panel section including a liquid
crystal display panel;
a backlight section placed on the rear of the liquid crystal
display panel away from an image display surface, the backlight
section extending from end to end of the liquid crystal display
panel in a horizontal scanning direction and including a plurality
of blocks arranged in a vertical scanning direction; and
a circuit section that performs control in a first sub-frame
and a second sub-frame, wherein each of the first sub-frame and
the second sub-frame includes identical image contents to be
displayed on the liquid crystal display panel, wherein performing
control in the first sub-frame comprises sequentially turning off
blocks of the backlight section irradiating portions of the liquid
crystal display panel as image segments are being updated for the
portions of the liquid crystal display panel during the display of
the first sub-frame, and wherein performing control in the second
sub-frame-comprises sequentially turning on blocks of the
backlight section irradiating portions of the liquid crystal display
panel as image segments are being updated for the portions of
the liquid crystal display panel during display of the second sub-
frame.
REJECTION
Claims 1—4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Hsu et al. (US 2008/0297461 Al; Dec. 4, 2008).
2
Appeal 2016-007873
Application 12/466,408
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Hsu does not disclose “wherein each of the first sub­
frame and the second sub-frame includes identical image contents''’ as
recited in claim 1 and a similar limitation recited in claim 4. See App. Br. 5—
7. According to Appellant, the cited portion of Hsu discloses displaying
different image data, in particular color image data and gray scale image
data. See id.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The Examiner found
Figures 2 and 3 and paragraph 38 of Hsu disclose first and second sub-
frames that have “identical image contents” as required by claim 1. See
Final Act. 3; Ans. 7. Although Figure 3 appears to depict the same image in
an “image period” and a “dark state period,” Hsu explains the image period
displays a “normal” image and the dark state period displays a gray-scale
image. See Hsu 34—38; see also id. Fig. 2 (depicting a timing diagram
that displays “gray scale image data” and “frame data” in the same frame
period). The cited portions of Hsu do not disclose that the normal and gray­
scale images have identical content. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—4.
REVERSED
3