Ex Parte Wasinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14453966 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/453,966 08/07/2014
8698 7590 02/04/2019
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jerry Wasinger
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.
MAN224 l -063J 8353
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
s tandleydocketing@standley llp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERRY WASINGER and WILLIAM DUNN
Appeal2018-005436
Application 14/453,966 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 4--15, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Manufacturing Resources
International, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005436
Application 14/453,966
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dynamic dimming led backlight. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An LED backlight assembly for a liquid crystal display
(LCD), the LED backlight assembly comprising:
an LED backlight having individually controllable
subsections;
an unpenetrated dividing wall extending away from the
LED backlight and separating adjacent subsections;
a diffusing element placed in front of the LED backlight;
a gap placed between the dividing wall and the diffusing
element; and
a histogram accumulator in electrical communication with
the LED backlight;
wherein said LED backlight comprises a number of color
producing LEDs that are configured to be illuminated
simultaneously to produce white light.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Park et al. ("Park")
Kubota et al. ("Kubota")
Park et al. ("Park '165")
Botzas et al. ("Botzas")
US 2008/0043463 Al Feb. 21, 2008
US 2008/0170178 Al July 17, 2008
US 2009/0109165 Al Apr. 30, 2009
US 2009/0284457 Al Nov. 19, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Kubota, and Botzas. Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Kubota. Final Act. 5-10.
2
Appeal2018-005436
Application 14/453,966
Claim 7 stands rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Park, Kubota, and Park '165. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Kubota, and Botzas. Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Park '165, and Botzas. Final Act. 12-15.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Park' 165. Final Act. 15-20.
Claims 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Park '165, and Botzas. Final Act. 20-21.
ISSUE
Does the modification of Park, as proposed by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), change its principle of
operation, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
sought to make the modification?
ANALYSIS
Appellants' invention is directed to an LED backlight assembly for a
liquid crystal display which has an LED backlight that is divided into
individually controlled subsections. The LED backlight is made up of color
producing LEDs that "are configured to be illuminated simultaneously to
produce white light." App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Appellants characterize this type of display, in which simultaneous
illumination of red, blue, and green LEDs is used to produce white light, as a
"'color filter' backlight." Id. at 7.
3
Appeal2018-005436
Application 14/453,966
The Examiner rejects each of the claims as being obvious over Park as
modified by either Park '165 or Kubota. In particular, and with respect to
claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Park, but finds that it does not
teach the limitation "wherein said LED backlight comprises a number of
color producing LEDs that are configured to be illuminated simultaneously
to produce white light." Final Act. 3--4; Final Act. 13-14. For independent
claims 1 and 6, the Examiner finds that Kubota ( and for independent claim
11 Park '165) teach this limitation because they describe mixing red, green,
and blue LED backlights to produce white light. Final Act. 4 ( citing Kubota
,r 216), 13 (citing Park '165 ,r 61). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to incorporate into Park the color mixing of LEDs, as
taught by either Kubota or Park '165. Final Act. 4, 13.
Appellants do not argue the proposed combination fails to teach or
suggest any of the recited limitations. Instead, Appellants argue the
Examiner improperly combines Park with the other references because the
modification proposed by the Examiner would change Park's principle of
operation and render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 7-
15. More specifically, Appellants argue that Park discloses a field sequential
driving ("FSD") display system. App. Br. 7. Appellants assert that an FSD
system "require[ s] that a red, green, and blue light be emitted in rapid
sequence such that the user's eye and brain meld the three separate images
into one so as to perceive a full color image." App. Br. 8 ( citing Park ,r,r 5-
7, 148). Appellants argue that in an FSD system, white light only is
produced by separately illuminating the red, green, and blue lights in rapid
sequence. Id. According to Appellants, the proposed modification of Park's
FSD system with the color filtering of Kubota or Park '165 would change
4
Appeal2018-005436
Application 14/453,966
Park's principle of operation because it would no longer operate as an FSD
system, and, instead, would operate as a color filtering system. App. Br. 10-
11. Appellants further argue that the proposed modification would render
Park's system unsuitable for its intended purpose because if the LED's in
Park's FSD system were modified to illuminate simultaneously, instead of to
illuminate in rapid sequence, it would result in a modified display unable to
reproduce colors. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. "If the proposed
modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of
operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the
references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious."
MPEP § 2143.0l(VI) (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, (CCPA 1959)).
We agree with Appellants that Park discloses an FSD system in which the
colored LEDs are illuminated in sequence to create color. See Park ,r,r 5-7,
45, 148 ("LCD device 500 employs a field sequential driving method, in
which a red light, a green light, and a blue light are sequentially emitted").
We also agree that the purpose of Park's invention is to improve color
reproducibility and color uniformity in FSD systems. See, e.g., Park ,r 19
("increasing color reproducibility of the light and improving uniformity of
the light").
The Examiner proposes replacing Park's sequential illumination of
colored LEDs with color filtering to produce white LED light using
simultaneous illumination, as taught by Kubota or Park '165. This
modification would mean that Park would no longer operate as an FSD
system. Because the purpose of Park's invention is to provide a specific
improvement to the operation of FSD systems, we agree with Appellants
5
Appeal2018-005436
Application 14/453,966
that modifying it, so that it no longer operates as an FSD system, would
"require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in
[Park] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [Park]
construction was designed to operate." MPEP 2143.0l(VI) (quoting Ratti,
270 F.2d at 813). We agree, therefore, that the Examiner's proposed
modification of Park with the teachings of either Kubota or Park '165 would
change the principle of operation of Park. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reason, we do not
sustain the rejections of the remaining claims, all of which are rejected based
at least in part on the same improper combinations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4--15.
REVERSED
6