Intel CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 15, 20212020002747 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/090,911 04/05/2016 Mallari C. Hanchate ITL.3376US (P85376) 5186 47795 7590 10/15/2021 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. PO Box 41790 HOUSTON, TX 77241 EXAMINER BIBBEE, CHAYCE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2021 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): Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com tphpto@tphm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MALLARI C. HANCHATE, GANESH R. S.T., BHARATH KUMAR, and SAMEER KP Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 2 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed September 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. 2 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed April 5, 2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 1, 2019; (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 31, 2019; and (4) the Reply Brief filed February 26, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to “computer systems that have two displays.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to Appellant, “[t]here is only one native port in embedded Display Port in some chipsets.” Spec. ¶ 12. “If the existing chipset only supports one embedded Display Port natively, this also means there is only one set of PPS [(panel power sequencing)] signals available.” Id. “To meet the power requirements to power up and down, of the second embedded Display Port panel . . ., these signals must be obtained from some other source.” Id. In accordance with Appellant’s invention, “the backlight enable (BKLT) and LCDVCC enable signals from the chipset 10 to the first panel 14 may be shared with the second panel 12 as shown in Figure 2.” Id. ¶ 13. Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration: Figure 2 depicts chipset 10 for controlling two embedded Display Port (eDP) panels 12, 14, via a single set of panel power sequencing (PPS) signals, including, for example, a backlight (BKLT) signal, a power (LCDVcc) Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 3 enable signal and a backlight control (BKLT_CNTRL) signal for brightness control. “Thus the chipset 10 supplies the backlight signal and the LCDVCC enable signal to both panels 12 and 14.” Id. ¶ 14. In this way, “[t]wo extended embedded Display Port displays may be enabled by using a single set of panel power sequencing (PPS) signals from a chipset to enable the two embedded Display Port panels.” Id. ¶ 8. Illustrative Claim Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with certain dispositive limitation at issue italicized and bracketed numerals added for brevity, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: [(1)] operating a first and second Display Port panels directly from one chipset by sharing backlight and power enable signals from the chipset with both panels; [(2)] causing a backlight to both panels to be turned off while training a link for the first panel; [(3)] after training the link for the first panel, turning on the backlight for the first panel; and [(4)] after training the link for the second panel turning on the backlight for the second panel. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wang et al. (US 2004/0252096 A1, published Dec. 16, 2004) (“Wang”) and Imai et al. (US 2013/0207943 A1, published Aug. 15, 2013) (“Imai”). Final Act. 2–5. Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 4 The Examiner rejects claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 16–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wang, Imai, and Wyatt (US 2015/0130850 A1, published May 14, 2015). Id. at 5–10. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). The Examiner finds that Wang teaches limitation (1) of independent claim 1, but finds that “Wang et al does not specifically disclose” limitations (2), (3), and (4) as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Imai to teach limitations (2)–(4). Id. at 4–5. The Examiner concludes that sufficient reason existed to combine the teachings of the references because it “would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Imai et al with the dual [panel] display system of Wang et al in order to prevent displaying a distorted image.” Id. (citing Imai ¶ 88). Of particular relevance, the Examiner relies on Wang’s backlight system of a dual panel display to teach limitation (1). Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4 (citing Wang ¶¶ 8, 16, and Fig. 3). Wang’s Figure 3 illustrates a backlight system of a dual panel display and is reproduced below with annotations added for illustration. Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 5 Figure 3 of Wang depicts a backlight system “in which a power controller chip 300 is used for power control of the backlight sources 314 and 316 of display panels 310 and 312.” Wang ¶ 16. “The controller chip 300 comprises . . . a control circuit 302 connected to the input voltage VIN to generate two control signals C1 and C2, [and] two switches 304 and 306 switched by the control signals C1 and C2, respectively.” Id. Switches 304 and 306 are connected respectively to the backlight sources 314 and 316. Id. Appellant argues that the cited material from Wang “says nothing about sharing both backlight and power enable signals with two panels. Rather, the cited material at best appears to describe a single signal that is separately provided to each panel (i.e., via the single switch for each panel).” Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 6 The Examiner responds by finding that: Wang in at least the abstract as well as Fig. 3 discloses two display panels both being controlled by a single power controller chip. While the power controller chip 300 in Fig. 3 and paragraph 0016 provides two control signals C1 and C2 to display panels 310 and 312 respectively, both the control signals come from the same source, namely control circuit 302 within power controller chip 300. Since both signals come from the same source, i.e. power controller chip 300, this can read on “a chipset sharing signals with two panels.” Ans. 3–4. In response, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad in view of Appellant’s Specification because “the term ‘sharing’ as used in the Specification refers to using a single set of [enable] signals for two different display panels”: In the present case, as used in the specification, the terms “sharing” and “shared” refer to using a single set of signals to control two different display panels. For example, the specification states as follows (emphases added) (citations to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification): Two extended embedded Display Port displays may be enabled by using a single set of panel power sequencing (PPS) signals from a chipset to enable the two embedded Display Port panels. (par. [0008]). Specifically existing PPS signals for the panel and backlight enable may be reused for both displays. (par. [0009]). According to one embodiment, the backlight enable (BKLT) and LCDVCC enable signals from the chipset 10 to the first panel 14 may be shared with the second panel 12 as shown in FIG. 2. Thus, as shown, the backlight signal BKLT is also ported for the second panel 14. (par. [0013]). Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 7 Thus the chipset 10 supplies the backlight signal and the LCDVCC enable signal to both panels 12 and 14. (par. [0014]). Sharing the PPS signals up to the T3 stage of the sequence shown in FIG. 1 means that it is possible that the sequence of both panels continues concurrently, until time parameter T3. (par. [0015]). This sharing of signals is also illustrated in Fig.2 . . . which shows that specific signals (e.g., LVDD EN, BKLT_CNTRL) are routed to both “panel 1” and “panel 2.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant’s interpretation of sharing. “The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Instead, a proper claim construction analysis endeavors to assign a meaning to a disputed claim term “that corresponds with . . . how the inventor describes his invention in the specification.” Id. at 1383. According to Appellant, the Specification indicates that each of the claimed power enable signal and backlight enable signal is a single signal shared between two displays. Reply 4. We agree, noting the Specification discloses that the power enable signal (LCDVCC) is a single signal that runs from chipset 10 to both eDP PANEL 12 and eDP PANEL 14, i.e., is shared by eDP PANEL 12 and eDP PANEL 14. Spec. ¶¶ 9–14, Fig. 2. Likewise, the Specification discloses that the backlight enable signal (BKLT_EN) is a single signal that runs from chipset 10 to both eDP PANEL 12 and eDP PANEL 14, i.e., is shared by eDP PANEL 12 and eDP PANEL 14. Id.; see also id. ¶ 14 (“Thus the chipset 10 supplies the backlight signal and the LCDVCC enable signal to both panels 12 and 14.”). Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 8 We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of “sharing” to encompass any number of control signals so long as they “come from the same source,” (Ans. 3) does not correspond with how the inventor describes the invention in the Specification (Reply Br. 3–4), which describes only a single enable signal shared between two displays (see Spec. ¶ 13) (“[T]he backlight enable (BKLT) and LCDVCC enable signals from the chipset 10 to the first panel 14 may be shared with the second panel 12 as shown in Figure 2.”). In view of Appellant’s proposed claim interpretation, we find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Wang’s backlight system teaches or suggests “sharing backlight and power enable signals from the chipset with both panels,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Wang’s control signals C1 and C2 to teach the claimed backlight enable signal. Final Act. 2. The Examiner, however, fails to show that Wang’s separate control signals for each backlight teaches or suggests using a single backlight enable signal shared between two backlights to control each of the backlights. We further disagree with the Examiner’s subsequent reliance on Wang’s Vout, because the Examiner does not show how Vout, in contrast with control signals C1 and C2, is a signal from controller 300 used to control or enable power to the backlights. Ans. 3. Given the current record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Wang teaches or suggests “operating a first and second Display Port panels directly from one chipset by sharing backlight and power enable signals from the chipset with both panels,” as recited in claim 1. Nor does the Examiner show that Imai compensates for the noted deficiencies of Wang. Appeal 2020-002747 Application 15/090,911 9 Final Act. 3–4. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, which recite limitations similar to those at issue in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–25, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 9, or 17. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: REVERSED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 103 Wang, Imai 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16–25 103 Wang, Imai, Wyatt 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16–25 Overall Outcome 1–25 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation