2020004375 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2021)

Min-Nan Liao

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 12, 2021

2020004375 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2021)

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. 14/113,609 10/24/2013 Min-Nan Liao 18007-114 8193 65358 7590 05/12/2021 WPAT, PC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS 8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405 VIENNA, VA 22182 EXAMINER PATEL, PREMAL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MIN-NAN LIAO ________________ Appeal 2020-004375 Application 14/113,609 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒3, 6, 8‒14, and 16.1 Claims 4, 5, 7, and 15 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 30‒34 (Claims App’x.). An oral hearing was held on May 6, 2021. A transcript of the oral hearing will be made of record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies SITRONIX TECHNOLOGY CORP. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004375 Application 14/113,609 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to a driving circuit for a display panel that uses voltage booster units attached to individual driving units to save space. Spec. 1‒2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A driving circuit, connecting to a voltage booster circuit coupled with a storage capacitor, for a display panel, comprising: a plurality of digital-to-analog converting circuits, converting input pixel data and producing a pixel signal, respectively; a plurality of driving units, coupled to said plurality of digital-to-analog converting circuits, respectively, producing a driving signal according to said pixel signal, and transmitting said driving signal to said display panel for displaying; and a plurality of voltage booster units, coupled to said plurality of driving units, respectively, producing a first supply voltage, and providing said first supply voltage to said plurality of driving units, respectively; wherein said voltage booster circuit, independent of said voltage booster units, coupled to said plurality of digital-to- analog converting circuits, and producing and providing a second supply voltage to said plurality of digital-to-analog converting circuits; and wherein said storage capacitor is coupled to said voltage booster circuit for stabilizing said second supply voltage. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1‒3, 6, 8‒11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) and Oku (US 2010/0097361 A1; Apr. 22, 2010). Final Act. 3‒8. Appeal 2020-004375 Application 14/113,609 3 Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over AAPA, Oku, and Ishiyama (US 2008/0036529 A1; Feb. 14, 2008). Final Act. 8‒10. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over AAPA, Oku, and Yajima (US 2005/0200622 A1; Sept. 15, 2005). Final Act. 11‒12. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of AAPA and Oku teaches or suggests “a plurality of driving units, coupled to said plurality of digital-to- analog converting circuits, respectively, producing a driving signal according to said pixel signal” and “a plurality of voltage booster units, coupled to said plurality of driving units, respectively, producing a first supply voltage, and providing said first supply voltage to said plurality of driving units, respectively,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3‒4. In particular, the Examiner finds Oku teaches a source driver that includes source amplifier 23, buffer amplifier 24-1, and buffer amplifier 24- 2. Ans. 14‒15 (citing Oku Fig. 2). The Examiner finds these amplifiers are “a plurality of driving units” and the power supplies for each are “a plurality of voltage booster units.” Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding source amplifier 23 is a “driving unit” as claimed because source amplifier 23 receives boosted voltage 2VDDH from boosting circuit 40. Reply Br. 18. Appellant argues boosting circuit 40 cannot be a “voltage booster unit” because the Examiner finds boosting circuit 40 is a “voltage booster circuit,” and claim 1 requires that the “voltage booster circuit” be “independent of said voltage booster units.” Id. (citing Oku Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶ 19, 73). Appellant argues source Appeal 2020-004375 Application 14/113,609 4 amplifier 23, therefore, cannot be a “driving unit” as claimed because its power source is not a “voltage booster unit.” Id. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding buffer amplifiers 24-1 and 24-2 are “driving units” because these amplifiers are not “coupled to said plurality of digital-to-analog converting circuits” and because the voltage supplied to these amplifiers, VDDH, is not boosted. Id. at 19‒20. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Oku Figure 2 is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-004375 Application 14/113,609 5 Figure 2 depicts source driver 20, including source amplifier 23, buffer amplifier 24-1, and buffer amplifier 24-2. As shown in Figure 2, source amplifier 23 receives boosted voltage 2VDDH, which Oku teaches is supplied by booster circuit 40. See Oku Fig. 1, ¶ 73. We agree with Appellant that source amplifier 23 cannot be a “driving unit” because its power source is the “voltage boosting circuit,” which must be independent of the “voltage boosting units.” See Reply Br. 18. Buffer amplifiers 24-1 and 24-2 receive un-boosted voltage VDDH from the supply voltage. See Oku ¶¶ 83‒84. Buffer amplifiers 24-1 and 24-2 are not coupled to DAC, the digital-to-analog converting circuit. Id. Indeed, Oku does not teach that buffer amplifiers 24-1 and 24-2 receive the claimed “pixel signal” that is produced by the “plurality of digital-to-analog converting circuits.” Thus, buffer amplifiers 24-1 and 24-2 cannot “produc[e] a driving signal according to said pixel signal,” as claimed. In light of these teachings, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained adequately why an ordinarily skilled artisan would modify AAPA according to the teachings of Oku to achieve the claimed invention in light of these deficiencies. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding the combination of AAPA and Oku teaches or suggests “a plurality of driving units, coupled to said plurality of digital- to-analog converting circuits, respectively, producing a driving signal according to said pixel signal” and “a plurality of voltage booster units, coupled to said plurality of driving units, respectively, producing a first supply voltage, and providing said first supply voltage to said plurality of Appeal 2020-004375 Application 14/113,609 6 driving units, respectively,” as recited in claim 1. For these reasons,2 we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10, which recites commensurate subject matter. By virtue of their dependency from one of these independent claims, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11‒14, and 16 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1‒3, 6, 8‒ 11, 16 103 AAPA, Oku 1‒3, 6, 8‒11, 16 12, 13 103 AAPA, Oku, Ishiyama 12, 13 14 103 AAPA, Oku, Yajima 14 Overall outcome 1‒3, 6, 8‒14, 16 REVERSED 2 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.