11402078 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2012)

Ex Parte Bin Marzuki et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 19, 2012

11402078 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ARJUNA BIN MARZUKI, KWAI LEE PANG and LEN-LI KEVIN LIM ____________ Appeal 2009-014179 Application 11/402,078 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM and KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014179 Application 11/402,078 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-17 and 19-211. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to backlighting of Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs). ¶¶ 0001-0003. More specifically, the invention is directed to an apparatus and method for integrating a quantity of light utilizing a photosensor, an integration capacitor, and a transfer amplifier with an input coupled to receive a voltage determined by the integration capacitor, an output, a first switch to pull the integration capacitor to a precharge voltage, and a second switch to couple the integration capacitor to the photosensor to discharge the integration capacitor in proportion to a quantity of light that is incident on the photosensor. ¶¶ 0004-0005; Abs. Independent claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the issues on appeal and are reproduced below (disputed limitations in italics): 1. An apparatus configured to integrate a quantity of light, comprising: a photosensor; an integration capacitor; a transfer amplifier comprising (i) an input coupled to receive a voltage determined by the integration capacitor, and (ii) an output; a first switch configured to pull the integration capacitor to a precharge voltage; a second switch configured to couple the integration capacitor to the photosensor, and to discharge the integration 1 Claims 2, 7, 18 and 22-24 have been cancelled. Claim 8 is objected to as dependent on a rejected claim, but including allowable subject matter. Final Office Action 11. Appeal 2009-014179 Application 11/402,078 3 capacitor in proportion to a quantity of light that is incident on the photosensor; and a controller configured to (i) generate one or more pulse- width-modulated (PWM) drive signals for controlling a light source configured to produce the light incident on the photosensor, and (ii) synchronize opening and closing of the first and second switches with an integer multiple of a PWM period of the PWM drive signals[;] wherein the apparatus is disposed on a single integrated circuit. 16. A method for integrating a quantity of light, comprising: disposing, on a single integrated circuit, an integration capacitor, a photosensor, means for discharging the capacitor, means for reading a voltage on the capacitor, and means for generating pulse-width-modulation (PWM) drive signals; during a precharge phase, pulling the integration capacitor to a precharge voltage; during an integration phase, following the precharge phase, discharging a charge on the integration capacitor in response to a quantity of light incident on the photosensor; at an end of the integration phase, reading the voltage determined by a charge remaining on the integration capacitor after discharging the capacitor; generating one or more PWM drive signals for controlling a light source that produces the light incident on the photosensor, the PWM drive signals having a PWM period; synchronizing the integration phase with an integer multiple of the PWM period. Rejections The following claims are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the applied prior art as follows: claims 1-3, 6 and 19 over Merle (U.S. 5,430,290; Jul. 4, 1995), Osako (U.S. 6,600,146; Jul. 29, 2003), and Takahara (US 2006/0262055; Nov. 23, 2006); Appeal 2009-014179 Application 11/402,078 4 claim 4 over Merle, Osako, Takahara and Hartman (U.S. 7,095,435; Aug. 22, 2006); claim 5 over Merle, Osako, Takahara and Mizuno (U.S. 6,201,573; Mar. 13, 2001). claim 9 over Merle, Osako, Takahara and Wyles (U.S. 5,751,005; May 12, 1998). claim 10 over Merle, Osako, Takahara and Fowler (U.S. 5,461,425; Oct. 24, 1995). claims 11-15 over Merle, Osako, Takahara, Wyles and Fowler. claims 16 and 17 over Merle and Takahara. claim 20 over Merle, Takahara and Mizuno. claim 21 over Merle, Takahara and Hartman. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Merle teaches or suggests “a controller configured to (i) generate one or more pulse-width-modulated (PWM) drive signals for controlling a light source configured to produce the light incident on the photosensor . . . ” as recited in independent claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that Merle teaches or suggests “generating one or more PWM drive signals for controlling a light source that produces the light incident on the photosensor . . . ” as recited in claim 16? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action and Appellants’ arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response Appeal 2009-014179 Application 11/402,078 5 to the Answer. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. The Examiner finds that Merle discloses driving a light source that produces light incident on the photosensor, and the driving signal having a period. Ans. 4, ll. 4-7 (citing col. 5, l. 39 through col. 6, l. 10). The Examiner further asserts that Merle teaches pulse width modulation in Figure 3, which is the flashing on and off of the light source 3 with a period of 1 and further finds that the flashing of the light source is represented by numerals 15 and 16 of diagram d of Fig. 3. Ans. 12, l. 1 through 13, l. 2; Ans. 14, ll. 3-10; see also Ans. 13, ll. 15-16; Ans. 15, ll. 1-2. We agree with following arguments presented by Appellants: (1) Merle discloses detecting flashes of light, and does not disclose a control circuit for controlling the light produced by the light source (App. Br. 55, 61; Reply Br. 11-12, 19); (2) there is no discussion of modulating or adjusting the timing of the light source anywhere in the Merle reference (Reply Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 22); and (3) Merle’s circuits are merely reactive to the presence of light flashes and do not control or modulate the illumination of the light source (id.). As applied by the Examiner, the remaining prior art references do not remedy the deficiencies of Merle. Ans. 4-12. For at least these reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 3-6, 9-15, 17 and 19-21. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 9-17 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the applied prior art. Appeal 2009-014179 Application 11/402,078 6 REVERSED dw