Ex Parte Stewart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

11759806 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROGER STEWART
____________

Appeal 2010-007689
Application 11/759,806
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007689
Application 11/759,806

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-6, 12, 13, 21, and 22. Claims 7-11 have been
withdrawn and claims 14-20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A current-driven display, comprising:
a circuit producing a variable average output current during a frame
period in response to a variable average input current received during a line
period, wherein a ratio of high and low values of the average output current
is different than a ratio of high and low values of the average input current.

Prior Art
Awakura US 2005/0068270 A1 Mar. 31, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Awakura.
Claims 4-6, 12, 13, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Awakura.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claim 1
Appellant contends that Awakura does not describe “a circuit
producing a variable average output current during a frame period in
response to a variable average input current received during a line period” as
Appeal 2010-007689
Application 11/759,806

3
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner finds that
Awakura describes that the output display luminance is lower than an input
level when a frame is high. The Examiner further finds that Awakura
describes using the average luminance of a portion of the screen, such as a
line. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and Final Rejection.
Appellant contends that Awakura does not describe “a ratio of high
and low values of the average output current is different than a ratio of high
and low values of the average input current” as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
13; Reply Br. 4-8. The Examiner finds that Fig. 4 of Awakura describes the
claimed ratios. Ans. 12-13. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons
given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claim 2
Appellant contends that Awakura does not describe a light emitting
diode. App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner finds that Awakura describes a light
emitting diode. Ans. 14. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claim 3
Appellant contends that Awakura does not describe “the ratio of high
and low values of the average output current is substantially greater than a
ratio of high and low values of the average input current.” App. Br. 14-15.
The Examiner finds that Awakura describes the claimed ratios. Ans. 14.
Appeal 2010-007689
Application 11/759,806

4
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claim 21
Appellant contends that Awakura does not describe a ratio of high and
low values of the average output current is different than a ratio of high and
low values of the average input current, “wherein the ratios are not
substantially proportional to each other” as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 16;
Reply Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds that Awakura describes the claimed
ratios. Ans. 14. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 103 rejection of claims 4 and 22
Appellant contends that Awakura does not teach “wherein the ratio of
high and low values of the average output current is at least 10 times greater
than the ratio of high and low values of the average input current” as recited
in claim 4. App. Br. 16-22; Reply Br. 10-15. The Examiner finds that
Awakura teaches the claimed ratios. Ans. 14-16. We agree with the
Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2010-007689
Application 11/759,806

5
Section 103 rejection of claim 5
Appellant contends that Awakura does not teach the operations
performed during the select line period, deselect line period, and
illumination period recited in claim 5. Appellant also contends that
Awakura does not teach storing voltages without producing light during the
deselect line period. Appellant further contends that Awakura teaches away
from storing voltages in the pixels without producing light, that modifying
Awakura to do so would change the principle of operation and render the
prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and that the Examiner
improperly relies on common knowledge. App. Br. 22-25; Reply Br. 15-20.
The Examiner finds that Awakura teaches the limitations of claim 5. Ans.
16-18. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s
Answer and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 6
Appellant contends that Awakura does not teach the operations
performed during the select line period, the deselect line period, and the
illumination period recited in claim 6, and that the Examiner improperly
relies on common knowledge. App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 20-23. The
Examiner finds that Awakura teaches the limitations of claim 6. Ans. 18-19.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer
and Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2010-007689
Application 11/759,806

6
Section 103 rejection of claims 12-13
Appellant contends that Awakura does not teach the operations
performed during the select line period, frame period, and illumination
period recited in claim 12. Appellant also contends that the Examiner
improperly relies on common knowledge. App. Br. 27-30; Reply Br. 23-27.
The Examiner finds that Awakura teaches the limitations of claims 12 and
13. Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer and the Final Rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Awakura is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4-6, 12, 13, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Awakura is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

gvw