Ex Parte Dhayagude et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2017

11942239 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2017)

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.
11/942,239 11/19/2007 Tushar Heramb Dhayagude 20275-0164001/SILIP109 1247
94166 7590 04/20/2017
Fish & Rioharrknn PF / Atmel EXAMINER
P.O.Box 1022 ABDIN, SHAHEDA A
Minneapolis, MN 55440
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2017 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 DHAYAGUDE, DILIP S,
HENDRIK SANTO, and ANJAN SEN
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
Technology Center 2600
Before: MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, 16, and 21—25, which constitute
all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to an apparatus and technique for
modular electronic display control. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display comprising:
light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in a plurality of
LED strings, wherein each LED string includes a plurality of
LEDs, the plurality of LED strings divided among a plurality of
sections of the display;
a system controller configured for controlling a timing of
the display; and
a different local controller assigned to each section of the
display and configured for controlling LED strings in the
section of the display by:
receiving feedback signals from the plurality of
LED strings included in the section;
based on receiving the feedback signals, selecting
a lead string for the section from the plurality of LED
strings, the lead string being a LED string with a highest
forward voltage;
determining a current flowing through the lead
string for the section; and adaptively adjusting a drive
voltage that is provided to the plurality of LED strings in
the section based upon the current flowing through the
lead string, wherein
a reference signal from the system controller is utilized
for synchronizing operation of the local controller with the
system controller.
2
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—6, 16, and 21—24 stand rejected under nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting grounds as being unpatentable over claim
1 of Dilip S et al. (US 7,777,704 B2; issued Aug. 17, 2010) (hereinafter “the
‘704 Patent”) and Archenhold et al. (US 2008/0191631 Al; published Aug.
14, 2008) (hereinafter “Archenhold”).
Claims 1, 3—6, 11, 12, 16, and 21—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Archenhold and
Rader et al. (US 2005/0088207 Al; published Apr. 28, 2005) (hereinafter
“Rader”).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Rader, Archenhold, and Maruyama et
al. (US 2005/0243017 Al; published Nov. 3, 2005) (hereinafter
“Maruyama”).
Claims 2, 11, 12, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of the ‘704 Patent, Archenhold,
and Rader.1
Claims 8—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Archenhold, Rader, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art (Fig. 3) (“AAPA”).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants argue “[t]he Office has made no attempt to articulate
which features described in claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent are being compared to
1 The Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer. Ans. 5.
3
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
which features recited in claim 1 of the present application, nor has the
Office made any well-reasoned attempt to describe how claim 1 of the ‘704
Patent ‘obviously teaches most of the limitations as recited in claims 1,16
and 21 of the instant application.’” App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue
“the Office fails to explain why or how ‘measured forward voltage’ id. is
broader than ‘output parameter’ id.” Id. at 10.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not
clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent.
The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does
any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an
invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?”
General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272,
1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d438 (CCPA 1970)).
Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the
claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the
differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251
F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the
decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter
render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a
pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a
patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422
F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).
The Examiner has the initi al burden of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On
this record, we are constrained to conclude that the Examiner has not met
that burden. In particular, the Examiner fails to identify the specific
4
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
structures in claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent that correspond to the structures in
the claims on appeal. For example, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 10-
12) that claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent does not discuss, inter alia, “each LED
string includes a plurality of LEDs,” “the plural ity of LED strings divided
among a plurality of sections of the display,” “selecting a lead string for the
section from the plurality of LED strings, the lead string being a LED string
with a highest forward voltage” and “adaptively adjusting a drive voltage
that is provided to the plurality of LED strings . . . based upon the current
flowing through the lead string.” Id. at 11. Although the difference in claim
scope may not result in a patentable variation, the Examiner has not
adequately explained why the instant claims are not patentably
distinguishable from claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent as combined with
Archenhold, and we do not substitute our own analysis for the Examiner.
Due to the lack of proper analysis, we cannot sustain this rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 16, and 21—24 over claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent and
Archenhold.
Obviousness Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
After consideration of each of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with
the Examiner in connection with the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We refer to and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer and in the action from which this appeal was
taken. Ans. 5—9; see also Non-Final Act. 9—11. Our discussions here are
limited to the following points of emphasis.
5
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
Appellants contend Archenhold does not disclose “the plurality of
LED strings divided among a plurality of sections of the display.” App.
Br. 20. According to Appellants, “[t]he ‘load drive section 4’ described in
the portions of Archenhold quoted ... is part of ‘an illumination control
system 100’ . . . included in ‘lighting fixtures.’” Id.
The Examiner relies on LED load 15, not load drive section 4, to
teach or suggest the sections of the display. See Non-Final Act. 9 (“the
plurality of LED strings divided a plurality of sections (15) of the display”);
see also Archenhold Figs. 4, 10. The Examiner relies on load drive section 4
to teach or suggest the claimed local controller. Non-Final Act. 9 (“a
different local controller (4, Fig. 10)”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of error because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s
findings.
Appellants further contend Rader does not disclose “LED string [that]
includes a plurality of LEDs.” App. Br. 21. Specifically, Appellants argue
“Rader discloses voltages and currents for individual LEDs, and not for any
LED string.” Id.
Although the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Rader teaches or
suggests a plurality of LED strings, the Examiner relies on Archenhold, not
Rader, to teach or suggest an “LED string [that] includes a plurality of
LEDs.” See Non-Final Act. 9—10; Archenhold Fig. 10,1117; and Rader
Fig. 2. We agree with the Examiner that Archenhold teaches or suggests an
LED string that includes a plurality of LEDs and, therefore, Appellants
argument asserting deficiencies in the Rader reference are unpersuasive.
Appellants further contend Rader does not disclose “determining a
current flowing through the lead string for the section.” App. Br. 22.
6
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
Rather, Appellants argue “Rader discloses the use of ‘predetermined
current,’ ‘reference current,’ and known or predetermined
ratio/factor/multiple thereof, instead of having to determine ‘current flowing
through the lead string for the section.’” Id. at 23.
Rader describes the current control circuit 18 regulates the current
flowing through LED 16 (Iled). Rader || 25, 26; see also Rader Fig. 2.
Rader further describes that “[t]he desired current Iled is a predetermined
multiple of the reference current Iref supplied by the current source 30 under
user control.” Rader 126. The current control circuit 18 controls LED
current Iled by altering the series resistance (and therefore the voltage drop
across the current control circuit 18). Rader || 23, 25, and 26; see also
Rader 138. Given that current control circuit 18 regulates and controls the
current flowing through LED 16 as described, Appellants do not
persuasively explain why desired current Iled being a predetermined
multiple of reference current Iref precludes determination of the current
flowing through the lead string for the section (Iled).
Appellants further contend Rader does not disclose “adaptively
adjusting a drive voltage that is provided to the plurality of LED strings . . .
based upon the current flowing through the lead string.” App. Br. 24
(emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellants argue Rader discloses “driving
the individual LEDs to one of several known voltage levels depending on
the mode and switching between the modes based on a threshold voltage
comparison.” Id.
In addition to the disclosure described above, Rader describes that
current control circuit 18 also “adjusts its series resistance to compensate for
the unknown forward voltage drop of the LED 16.” Rader 125. The lowest
7
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
voltage drop across each current control circuit (which corresponds to the
LED exhibiting the highest forward voltage drop), is compared to a
threshold. Rader 123. If the voltage drops below the threshold, the power
conditioning circuit 8 switches from battery mode to boost mode. Id.\ see
also Fig. 2.
Claim 1 recites “adaptively adjusting a drive voltage that is provided
to the plurality of LED strings in the section based upon the current flowing
through the lead string.” The claim further recites “the lead string being a
LED string with a highest forward voltage.” Hence, the lowest voltage drop
across each current control circuit corresponds to the lead string, as claimed.
Given the well-known relationship between voltage and current in circuitry
such as that covered by claim 1, we agree with the Examiner (Non-Final
Act. 10) that the disclosure in Rader teaches or suggests adaptively adjusting
a drive voltage that is provided to the plurality of LED strings in the section
(Fig. 2, Vout) based upon the current flowing through the lead string (Iled).
Appellants further contend the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Arehenhold and Rader is “entirely redundant and without technical merit.”
App. Br. 19. Appellants argue “the Office has failed to identify any
reasoning with some rational underpinning why the skilled artisan would use
Rader’s battery-powered circuits for LEDs in Arehenhold’s illumination
control system for Light Emitters.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, which do not
adequately address the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds one of
ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the teachings to “provide a
high efficient data transmission with improving power facility in the display
device.” Non-Final Act. 11. The Examiner’s analysis is sufficient to
8
Appeal 2016-006914
Application 11/942,239
demonstrate use of a known technique from Rader to improve Archenhold’s
similar device in the same way, pursuant to KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007), given that, inter alia, Appellants have not persuaded us
that the combination is “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary'
skill in the art,” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir, 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S, at 419).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and, therefore,
sustain those rejections. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2—6, 8—10, 11, 12, and 22—25,
which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting
rejections of claims 1, 3—6, 16, and 21—24.
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—
6,8-10, 11, 12, 16, and 21-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9