Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2012

11204188 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

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.
11/204,188 08/15/2005 Seok Woo Lee 10125-4206 2040
757 7590 05/16/2012
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
WALTHALL, ALLISON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SEOK WOO LEE and NAM HEE KIM
_____________

Appeal 2010-009899
Application 11/204,188
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009899
Application 11/204,188

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and 48.1 An oral
hearing was conducted on May 1, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for driving a
liquid crystal display device. See Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for driving a liquid crystal display device,
comprising:
a liquid crystal panel including a plurality of gate lines and a
plurality of data lines arranged perpendicularly to each other;
a gate driver that supplies a gate pulse to the gate lines; and
a data driver that samples an input N-bit digital data signal to
generate an analog data voltage, generates a modulated data
voltage according to an M-bit data value of the sampled digital
data signal, mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog
data voltage to form a mixed data voltage, and supplies the
mixed data voltage to the data lines,
wherein N and M are positive integers and M is smaller than
or equal to N, and wherein the data driver includes,
a shift register that generates a sampling signal;
a latch that latches the N-bit digital data signal in response to
the sampling signal and outputs the latched N-bit digital data
signal in response to a data output enable signal (SOE);
a digital/analog converter that converts the N-bit digital data
signal from the latch into the analog data voltage;

1 Claims 5 and 32-46 were previously cancelled and claims 9, 12-19, 25, and
28-31 were previously withdrawn.
Appeal 2010-009899
Application 11/204,188

3
a modulator that generates a modulated data voltage
according to an M-bit data value of the sampled digital N-bit
data signal from the latch; and
a mixer that mixes the modulated data voltage with the
analog data voltage to form the mixed data voltage and outputs
the mixed data voltage to the data lines.

REFERENCES
Ikeda US 2001/0040548 A1 Nov. 15, 2001

Chiang US 2002/0063674 A1 May 30, 2002

Ham US 2003/0048246 A1 Mar. 13, 2003

Nakajima US 6,664,943 B1 Dec. 16, 2003

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 20-23 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ham. Ans. 4-5.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ham and Nakajima. Ans. 6-9.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ham, Nakajima, and Ikeda. Ans. 9-
10.

2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, and 27 as
provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-37 and 64-67 of
copending Application No. 11/434,595. Ans. 3. This rejection is not at
issue in this Appeal as the Examiner has indicated that Appellants will file a
terminal disclaimer if and when the present and copending applications are
allowed. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2010-009899
Application 11/204,188

4
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ham and Ikeda. Ans. 10.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Ham, Nakajima, and Chiang. Ans. 10-11.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Ham and Chiang. Ans. 11.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Ham discloses a mixer that mixes
the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form the mixed
data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to the data lines, as required
by independent claims 1 and 20?

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and 48. Claim 20
requires a mixer that mixes the modulated data voltage with the analog data
voltage to form the mixed data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to
the data lines. Claims 21-24, 26, 27, and 48 are dependent upon claim 20.
Independent claim 1 contains a similar limitation. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11,
and 47 are dependent upon claim 1. Appellants argue that Ham does not
disclose mixing the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to
form a mixed data voltage before it is outputted to the data lines. App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2. The Examiner interprets the term “mixing two signals” as
“applying them to the same line one after the other.” Ans. 12. Therefore,
the Examiner finds that Ham teaches that applying the modulated voltage
Appeal 2010-009899
Application 11/204,188

5
AMVD and the analog voltage normal RGB within the same frame creates a
mixed signal. We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation and, as a
result, with the Examiner’s finding.
As correctly indicated by Appellants, the mixed data voltage must be
a combination of the modulated data voltage and the analog data voltage, as
required by the claim. We do not find, nor does the Examiner provide
sufficient evidence to show, that supplying two voltages at separate times
within a frame constitutes a mixed data voltage that is outputted to the data
lines. Nakajima, Chiang, and Ikeda were not cited to teach or suggest
mixing limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether these
additional references cure the noted deficiencies. Thus, we cannot sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26, 27, 47, and
48.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Ham discloses a mixer that mixes
the modulated data voltage with the analog data voltage to form the mixed
data voltage and outputs the mixed data voltage to the data lines, as required
by independent claims 1 and 20.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 20-24, 26,
27, 47, and 48 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc