Ex Parte Danstrom

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

11100044 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC DANSTROM
____________

Appeal 2010-000619
Application 11/100,044
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000619
Application 11/100,044

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-33. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The Disclosed Invention
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. An LED array driver, comprising:
a high side driver responsive to segment control signals to selectively
supply current to and actuate certain ones of a plurality of LED segments
connected in a common cathode LED array; and
a low side driver operable to sink current from a common cathode
node of the LED array with a substantially constant low side voltage drop
from the common cathode node to ground regardless of how many plural
LED segments are supplied current by the high side driver.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 10-15, 19-24, and 26-33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted
Prior Art) in view of Meyer (U.S. Patent 4,099,171). (Ans. 3-8, 9-11, and
12-16.)
The Examiner rejected claims 7-9, 16-18, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Meyer and Deng
(U.S 2006/0109205 A1). (Ans. 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12.)

ISSUES
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
Appeal 2010-000619
Application 11/100,044

3
1. Did the Examiner establish that the combination of AAPA and Meyer
teaches “a substantially constant low side voltage drop,” as recited in claim 1
and 10, and as similarly recited in claims 26-32?
2. Did the Examiner establish that the combination of AAPA teaches “a
low side driver operable to sink current … through a plurality of selectively
actuated current sink paths,” as recited in claim 19 and as similarly recited in
claim 33?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1-18 and 26-32
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant’s conclusion regarding the obviousness of claims 1-18 and 26-32.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-9, 12-15, and 16-19) in
response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding the claimed limitation of “a substantially constant low
side voltage drop.”
Appellant contends that Meyer does not teach a substantially constant
low side voltage drop because it “teaches voltage drops which range from
1.66IR to 3IR.” (Reply Br. 7; see also App. Br. 13-18.) But Appellant’s
Specification explains that the low side voltage drop of his invention is
sufficiently constant so that “the brightness of the LEDs 114 will be
substantially constant regardless of segment S actuation.” (Spec. ¶ [20].)
Appeal 2010-000619
Application 11/100,044

4
And as explained by the Examiner, Meyer also teaches a low side voltage
drop that is sufficiently constant to achieve “a uniform brightness to LED
segments regardless of the segments illuminated.” (Ans. 17 citing Meyer
Abstract.) In other words, in both the Appellant’s invention and Meyer, the
low side voltage drop is sufficiently constant to achieve the intended purpose
of achieving a uniform brightness to a viewer regardless of the number of
LED segments that are illuminated. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner,
giving the claim its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the
Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly
relies on Meyer’s teaching of a low side voltage drop range of 1.66IR to 3IR
as the claimed “substantially constant low side voltage drop.”
For these reasons and the reasons expressed in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claim 1, as
well as claims 2-18 and 26-32 because Appellant either did not set forth any
separate patentability arguments for those claims or set forth arguments that
are substantially similar to those set forth for claim 1. (See App. Br. 13-19.)

Issue 2 – Obviousness Rejections of Claims 19-25 and 33
Appellant argues that AAPA, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, does
not teach “a low side driver operable to sink current … through a plurality of
selectively actuated current sink paths,” because the control circuit of the
AAPA “actuates just the one low side driver transistor 22 to sink all the
current from the common cathode node 18.” (App. Br. 19.) We agree with
Appellant; the low side driver of the AAPA cannot possibly operate to sink
current through a plurality of selectively actuated current sink paths because
it has only one sink path through transistor 22. (Spec. Fig. 1.)
Appeal 2010-000619
Application 11/100,044

5
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 19 or 33, or the claims that depend from claim 19. (i.e.,
claims 20-25).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 26-32
and reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19-25 and 33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD