Ex Parte Dhayagude et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

13426301 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/426,301 03/21/2012
94166 7590 08/25/2016
Fish & Richardson PC I Atmel
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tushar Heramb Dhayagude
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20275-0164002 2005
EXAMINER
ABDIN, SHAHEDA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TUSHAR HERAMB DHA YA GUDE, HENDRIK
SANTO, and ANJAN SEN
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-23. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Furukawa (US 2005/0231459
Al; Oct. 20, 2005) and Berman et al. (US 2004/0135522 Al; July 15, 2004).
Non-Final Act. 2-13.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "modular control architecture, in
which the LEDs [for backlighting in a display] are divided into several
sections and different local controllers are assigned to control the different
sections." Spec. 1:9--11. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) strings divided
into a plurality of sections, with each section including a
plurality of LED strings, wherein a LED string includes a
plurality of LEDs and wherein one end of each LED string is
coupled to ground through a field effect transistor (PET) that is
distinctly connected to the LED string;
for each of the plurality of sections, a separate local
controller that is distinctly associated with the section and
configured for controlling the plurality of LED strings in the
respective section by controlling drive voltage supplied to the
LED strings in the section and by controlling the on times of
the FETs that are distinctly connected to the LED strings in the
section, wherein the local controllers in the plurality of sections
are connected to one another; and
a system controller coupled to the separate local
controllers in the plurality of sections and configured for
providing synchronization signals to the local controllers.
2
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 13-15, 21, and 22
The Examiner finds Furukawa and Berman teach all limitations of
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 2--4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1.
Fig. 3 and the associated description in Berman disclose that
multiple LED strings are connected to a single PET 235, and
therefore does not describe or suggest "one end of each LED
string is coupled to ground through a field effect transistor (PET)
that is distinctly connected to the LED string," as recited in claim
1 (emphasis added).
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 1-3.
11. "With reference to the local controller '210,' Fig. 3 of Berman
[] does not disclose or suggest that the local controller in the section shown
in Fig. 3 is connected to local controllers in other sections." App. Br. 9; see
also Reply Br. 3--4.
In response, the Examiner explains Berman's Fig. 3 shows a PET
distinctly connected to the LED string, and the local controllers 210 are
connected through system controller 700 to one another. Ans. 3--4.
The Examiner persuades us that Berman discloses the argued claim
limitations.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that
Berman's (Fig. 3) PET connected to LED strings discloses the recited (claim
1) "one end of each LED string is coupled to ground through a field effect
transistor (PET) that is distinctly connected to the LED string." Non-Final
Act. 3. The claim language does not require that a PET be connected to only
a single LED string. Berman's PET 235 is distinctly connected to each LED
3
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
string in the group. Our interpretation comports with the plain meaning of
"distinct" which in the pertinent sense is: "1 : distinguishable to the eye or
mind as discrete." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 337
(10TH ED. 1997).
We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that
Berman's (Fig. 3) local controllers 210 connected to one another through
system controller 700 disclose the recited limitation (claim 1) that "the local
controllers in the plurality of sections are connected to one another." Non-
Final Act. 3. The claim language does not require the local controllers be
directly connected to each other. In addition, aside from being connected to
one another, the claim language does not place any further functional
limitations, such as a requirement for direct communication between local
controllers, on the connection that would require a direct connection. Thus,
because the claim only requires a connection in the general sense and there
are not further structural or functional limitations restricting the connection,
we agree with the Examiner that Berman's local controllers 210 are
connected to each other as required by claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 3, 13-15, 21, and 22, which is not separately argued with
particularity.
Claims 17-20
The Examiner finds Furukawa and Berman teach all limitations of
claim 17. Non-Final Act. 10-12.
Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal
argument:
4
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
Berman does not disclose the recited (claim 17) "determining a drive
voltage level to be provided to the lead string to generate a desired current
for providing a desired luminance of the LEDs in the lead string." See App.
Br. 11-13. "Since the lead string is 'defected [sic] lead string,' or 'off string'
that corresponds to a 'burnout LED group' per the Office's reasoning [ (on
page 11 of the Non-Final Act.)], then the issue of 'providing a desired
luminance of the LEDs in the lead string' does not arise." App. Br. 12.
Appellants' arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Berman teaches the recited (claim 17) "determining a drive voltage level to
be provided to the lead string to generate a desired current for providing a
desired luminance of the LEDs in the lead string."
In the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments, in the Answer,
the Examiner explains:
Each local controller can drive LED strings of different colors
(i.e. three color RGB). And [when] driving the LED strings of
different colors[, \vhen] an LED burns out, the current in the
string in which the LED is coupled is interrupted and all of the
LEDs in that group tum off. The LEDs of the same color that are
in other strings in other group, however, become brighter as the
same amount of current is now shared by fewer LEDs of the same
color.
Ans. 5 (citing Berman i-fi-135, 55).
Berman (i-f 35) discloses distributing LEDs of the same string across
the board so that bright or dark spots are minimized in the event of an LED
burning out. Berman (i-f 5 5) discloses a power calibration procedure to make
sure each LED group receives sufficient current.
Even if we assume that a higher forward voltage is somehow
associated with a string in which a burned out LED is located (see Non-
Final Act. 11; Ans. 5), and consider such a string as the recited lead string
5
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
(among the plurality of LED strings associated with the local controller
device), then Berman fails to teach the recited (claim 17) "determining a
drive voltage level to be provided to the lead string to generate a desired
current for providing a desired luminance of the LEDs in the lead string"
because there is not a desired luminance of the LEDs in a string in which
burned out LEDs are located.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17, or
of claims 18-20, which depend from claim 1 7.
Claim 4, 5, 7, and 9-11
The Examiner finds Furukawa and Berman teach all limitations of
claim 4. Non-Final Act. 5---6. Claim 4 recites "determining a drive voltage
level to be provided to the lead string to generate a desired current for
providing a desired luminance of the LEDs in the lead string."
This language in claim 4 is the same as the language in claim 1 7,
discussed above. The Examiner does not address the deficiencies discussed
above. See Non-Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 6.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, or
of claims 5, 7, and 9-11, which depend from claim 4.
Claim 12
The Examiner finds Furukawa and Berman teach the further
limitations of claim 12. Non-Final Act. 8-9 (citing Furukawa i-fi-137-38); see
also Ans. 9.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
6
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
A skilled artisan would readily appreciate that, contrary to the
assertion by the Office, the portions of Furukawa quoted above
do not disclose or suggest "providing . . . pixel data
corresponding to an image for display" and "providing
synchronization signals ... for synchronizing ... pixel circuitry
control in the respective sections," as recited in claim 12
(emphasis added). For at least these reasons, the rejection of
claim 12 should be reversed.
App. Br. 20-21.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
Furukawa (i1i137-38) discloses:
The backlight light source device 20 comprises a light
source 21 and a wavelength selecting filter 22. The backlight
light source device 20 irradiates the color liquid crystal display
panel 10 from the back side thereof with light emitted by the light
source 21 via the wavelength selecting filter 22.
The color liquid crystal display device 100 is driven by a
driving circuit 200, whose electrical block configuration is
shown in FIG. 2, for example.
Furukawa i1i137-38.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Furukawa's (Figure 2) liquid crystal display, driver circuits, and
backlight driving control unit reasonably describe the recited (claim 12)
"providing, to display drivers associated with the apparatus, pixel data
corresponding to an image for display." Further, when combined with
7
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
Berman's local controllers, the collective teachings of the references
reasonably describe (claim 12) (emphasis added) "providing synchronization
signals to each local controller for synchronizing backlighting control and
pixel circuitry control in the respective sections."
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Claims 16 and 23
The Examiner finds Furukawa and Berman teach all limitations of
claims 16 and 23. Non-Final Act. 10, 13 (citing Berman i-fi-153-56); see also
Ans. 9-10.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Berman's AID converters cited by the Examiner are distinct from
power converters. Berman discloses power supply 300. See App. Br. 21-22.
Appellants' arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Berman teaches the recited plurality of power converters in claims 16 and
23.
In the Office Action and the Answer (see Non-Final Act. 10, 13; Ans.
9-10) the Examiner states that Berman's AID converters are the recited
power converters. Appellants' patent application (Figure 4) discloses voltage
source 402 and power converter/regulator 450. See also Spec. 7:7-17
(example power converters include forward or flyback, buck, boost
converters). Although Appellants' Specification does not define the term
"power converter" we conclude that a broad, but reasonable, construction of
the term "power converter" is a circuit that converts electrical power from
one form to another. See Spec. 7:7-17. We find the Examiner's
interpretation of the term "power converter" to be overly broad and
8
Appeal2014-007675
Application 13/426,301
unreasonable because Berman's AID converters do not convert electrical
power from one form to another; rather, an AID converter receives a scaled
analog signal and generates a binary-coded number. Thus, we agree with
Appellants that Berman's AID converters cited by the Examiner are distinct
from power converters.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16
and 23.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 12-15, 21, and 22 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 16-20, and 23
is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9