Ex Parte Jeong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2012

10930949 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAE-SEOK JEONG
____________

Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRUCE R. WINSOR,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“[Appellant’s] invention relates to plasma display panels, generally,
and more particularly to . . . controlling address power on a plasma display
panel [(PDP)].” (Spec. ¶ [0002]). Claims 1 and 14, which are illustrative of
the invention, read as follows:
1. A method for controlling address power on a
plasma display panel having an address power recovery circuit,
comprising:
converting image data to be displayed on the plasma
display panel into corresponding subfield data;
analyzing the converted subfield data to generate a
variation of the data for each subfield;
stopping the operation of the address power recovery
circuit for each subfield having data variations less than a
predetermined first threshold value;
controlling a gain of the image data when the generated
variation of the image data is greater than a second threshold
value; and
operating the address power recovery circuit for each
subfield having data variations greater than the predetermined
first threshold value.
14. An apparatus for controlling address power on a
plasma display panel having an address power recovery circuit,
the apparatus comprising:
a data variation calculator for converting image data to be
displayed on the plasma display panel into corresponding
Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

3
subfield data, and for generating a variation of the data for each
subfield;
an address power recovery operation determine unit for
comparing the variation of the data for each subfield with a
predetermined first threshold value to determine an operational
status of the address power recovery circuit for each subfield;
an address power recovery timing controller for
generating switch timing of the address power recovery circuit
based on the operational status of the power recovery circuit;
and
an address electrode driver for controlling driving the
address power recovery circuit based on the switch timing
generated by the address power recovery timing controller.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kasahara (US 6,331,843 B1; Dec. 18, 2001) in view of
Hoppenbrouwers (US 2005/0082957 A1; Apr. 21, 2005). (Ans. 3).
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs (App. Br.; Reply Br.) and the Answer (Ans.) for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).

ISSUES
Appellant contends (1) that the Final Rejection provides contradictory
grounds for rejecting claim 1; and (2) that the Final Rejection contains a new
ground of rejection not necessitated by Appellant’s amendment. (App. Br.
8). Both of these contentions argue that that the Final Rejection was
premature and should be withdrawn. These are matters that must be
Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

4
presented, if at all, by a timely filed petition rather than on appeal to this
Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181; MPEP §§ 706.07(c), 1002.02(c) (8th ed.
2001, rev. 2010). Therefore, we will not reach these contentions.
Appellant further contends that “[t]he Examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claims 1-20 because the prior
art of record does not teach or suggest every claimed feature.” (App. Br. 8).
More particularly Appellant contends, referring to claim 1 as
representing all of the independent claims (see App. Br. 12), inter alia, that
Kasahara fails to teach or suggest “analyzing . . . converted subfield data to
generate a variation of the data for each subfield” (hereinafter the “analyzing
limitation”), as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the issue to be decided is:
Does Kasahara, alone or in combination with Hoppenbrouwers, teach or
suggest the analyzing step?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kasahara teaches the analyzing limitation in
Figure 11 in the form of the peak level detector 26 and average level
detector 28. (See Ans. 3). The Examiner also finds that Kasahara’s Figure
11 teaches that image data is converted into subfield data (i.e., the converted
subfield data) by the display gradation adjusting device 14, picture subfield
corresponding device 16, and subfield processor 18. (See id.).
Figure 11 of Kasahara is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

5

“FIG. 11 shows a block diagram of a display apparatus of [an] . . .
embodiment” of Kasahara’s PDP. (Kasahara, col. 5, ll. 36-37).
Appellant contends as follows:
Kasahara fails to teach “analyzing the converted subfield data
to generate a variation of the data for each subfield.” The
[Examiner] relies upon a peak level detector 26 and an average
level detector 28 to teach the analyzing step of claim 1.
Kasahara discloses that “post-reverse gamma correction R, G, B
signals are sent to . . . a peak level detector 26 and an average
level detector 28.” [(Kasahara, col. 20, l. 66 – col. 21, l. 1).]
However, the post-reverse gamma correction R, G, B, signals
are not “converted subfield data.” Rather, “the levels of the R,
G, B signals, from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 255, are
each displayed . . . in accordance with a 16-bit signal as 256
non-linearly different levels” representing the gray scale of a
single frame. [(Id., col. 20, ll. 62-65).] Furthermore, a display
gradation adjusting device 14, a picture signal-subfield
Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

6
corresponding device 16, and a subfield processor 18, which the
[Examiner] relies upon to teach the step of “converting image
data to be displayed on the plasma display panel into
corresponding subfield data,” are only used after the peak level
detector 26 and the average level detector 28. [(Id., Fig. 11).]
Thus, the peak level detector 26 and the average level detector
28 do not detect levels of “converted subfield data.” Hence,
Kasahara fails to teach or suggest “analyzing the converted
subfield data to generate a variation of the data for each
subfield” (emphasis added).
(App. Br. 10-11 (ellipses in original) (footnotes omitted) (brackets omitted)).
We agree with Appellant for the reasons stated by Appellant. (Id.).
Appellant also contends that Hoppenbrouwers’s subfield weight fails
to teach “converted subfield data” as recited in the analyzing limitation
(App. Br. 11). However, in view of our discussion supra we conclude this
argument is moot.
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of its dependent
claims 4-8.
Claims 2, 9, and 16
Independent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite limitations that substantially
parallel the analyzing limitation of claim 1, and the arguments which
persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 1 apply in the same way to
claims 2, 9, and 16. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
2, 9, and 16, and of their dependent claims 3 and 10-13.
Claims 14 and 15
The arguments which we found persuasive of error in the rejection of
claim 1 are not commensurate with the recitations of claims 14 and 15. For
example, claim 14 recites “a data variation calculator for converting image
Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

7
data to be displayed on the plasma display panel into corresponding subfield
data, and for generating a variation of the data for each subfield.” However,
claim 14 does not recite that the variation of data for each subfield is
generated by analyzing converted subfield data.
Appellant also contends, with reference to claim 1, that the cited
references fail to teach “stopping the operation of the address power
recovery circuit for each subfield having data variations less than a
predetermined first threshold value.” (App. Br. 12). However, this
limitation is not recited in claim 14 or 15 and Appellant does not explain
how the argument applies to the limitations recited in claims 14 and 15. “It
is not the function of this [board] to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an [A]ppellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15, and of
their dependent claims 17-20, the patentability of which was not separately
argued.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14, 15, and 17-20 is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 and 16 is reversed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal 2009-014473
Application 10/930,949

8

babc