Ex Parte Dunn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

13159183 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/159, 183 06/13/2011
8698 7590 08/25/2016
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Dunn
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.
AME 1638-049B 1956
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, LEONID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
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):
s tandleydocketing@standley llp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM DUNN 1
Appeal2015-006555
Application 13/159, 183
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies American Panel Corporation as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-006555
Application 13/159,183
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to "an LED backlight system for a
liquid crystal display device." Spec. i-f 2. In a disclosed embodiment, a
plurality of separately controllable backlights can be operated
simultaneously, each at reduced power. Spec. i-f 11-14. According to the
Specification, operating the LED backlights at a reduced power (e.g., half-
power in a two backlight system) may increase the efficiency of the LED
backlights. Spec. i-fi-1 14, 23.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for driving a redundant LED backlight having a
desired overall luminance output, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a first and second plurality of LEDs where the
application of power level P to either the first or second plurality of
LEDs will produce the desired overall luminance output for the
backlight;
operating the backlight by driving the first and second plurality
of LEDs simultaneously at approximately one-half of P; and
monitoring the luminance generated by the first and second
plurality of LEDs and comparing this value to the desired overall
luminance output and increasing the power level to the first, second, or
first and second plurality of LEDs when the generated luminance falls
below the desired overall luminance.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheang et al. (US 7,012,382 B2; Mar.
2
Appeal2015-006555
Application 13/159,183
14, 2006) ("Cheang") and Bayat et al. (US 2010/0148697 Al; June 17,
2010) ("Bayat"). Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claims 3-7, 12-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheang, Bayat, and Saccomanno (US
2007/0188425 Al; Aug. 16, 2007). Final Act. 5-6.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cheang and
Bayat teaches or suggests "operating the backlight by driving the first and
second plurality of LEDs simultaneously at approximately one-half of P," as
recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in relying on the proposed combination of
Cheang and Bayat in rejecting, inter alia, claim 1?
ANALYSIS 2
Cheang is directed to an "LED-based light system includ[ing] a
primary light source and at least one redundant light source." Cheang,
Abstract. Cheang teaches such LED-based light systems may be used for
liquid crystal display backlighting. Cheang, col. 1, 11. 7-9; see also Final
Act. 2. Additionally, Cheang teaches measuring the performance of the light
source (e.g., desired luminance and chrominance characteristics) to
determine whether to activate the redundant light source to operate in
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 29, 2014 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on April 24,
2014 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on
July 24, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal2015-006555
Application 13/159,183
combination with (i.e., simultaneously) the primary light source. Cheang,
col. 1, 11. 56-58, col. 3, 11. 2--4, 39--41, Fig. 5; see also Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds although Cheang teaches the simultaneous
operation of the primary and redundant light systems (see Final Act. 2
(citing Cheang Fig. 5, item 156)), Cheang does not explicitly teach the
simultaneous operation occurs at one-half power (P). Final Act. 2.
However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Bayat teaches operating LEDs
at approximately one-half P. Final Act. 3 (citing Bayat, i-f 134, Fig. 9, item
658). The Examiner further finds "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate teachings
of Bayat et al. into Cheang et al. system in order to exercise a power
control." Final Act. 3 (citing Bayat i-f 3).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Bayat is directed to "a
combination task lamp and flashlight" and is not a backlight. Br. 9. Further,
Appellant asserts "Bayat never teaches to simultaneously drive the flood
light LEDs and the spot light LEDs simultaneously at one-half P." Br. 9.
Appellant concedes Bayat teaches a reduced power level to the LEDs will
result in reduced illumination output, but that this is "simply [a] basic
concept of electrical power (i.e. less power means less illumination)." Br. 9.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981 ). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination
of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal2015-006555
Application 13/159,183
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellant's
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection and attack the
references separately, whereas the Examiner's rejection relies on the
combined teachings of Cheang and Bayat. Specifically, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, Cheang teaches operating a first and second plurality of LEDs
(i.e., backlight systems) simultaneously and adjusting the power to each of
the backlight systems to achieve the desired light output. Final Act. 2 (citing
Cheang, Fig. 5, items 156, 158, 160). The Examiner relies on Bayat to teach
providing one-half power to each of the backlight systems of Cheang. See
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Bayat i-f 134, Fig. 9, item 658). We agree with the
Examiner's findings. Bayat teaches, inter alia, "half power operation (for
reduced brightness) may be provided by controlling the duty cycle of the
output drive to the drive transistor 638." Bayat i-f 134. Additionally, we do
not agree with Appellant's contention that Bayat does not teach the
simultaneous operation of its light sources (see Br. 9). Bayat teaches a
plurality of light devices may be operated simultaneously. See, e.g., Bayat
i-f 52, Fig. 3 (describing and illustrating a resulting light pattern formed by
overlapping beams of light from various light sources).
Appellant also contends the Examiner failed to provide an articulated
reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
teachings of Bayat with those of Cheang, as proposed by the Examiner.
Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellant argues Cheang already has a power
control system provided by a microcontroller and would not, therefore, need
to be combined with the power control from Bayat. Br. 11.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Cheang teaches using control
signals and a "control system us[ing] the feedback signals to adjust the LED
5
Appeal2015-006555
Application 13/159,183
control signals to maintain the desired luminance and chrominance
characteristics." Cheang, col. 3, 11. 5-19. Bayat teaches regulating the light
output by altering the drive provided by various transistors in the disclosed
circuit. Bayat i-fi-f 133, 134. The Examiner finds this is an "effective 'power
control."' Ans. 5. Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's
findings. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided an articulated
reasoning-namely, an effective power control teaching of Bayat-to
support the proposed combination of references and conclusion of
obviousness. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection independent claims 8 and 15,
which were not argued separately and which recite similar limitations.
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-7,
9-14, and 16-18, which were not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6