Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2009

10758543 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte YOUNG-KI KIM and SEUNG-WOO LEE
________________

Appeal 2009-002406
Application 10/758,543
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided:1 June 12, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1, 3 to 6, 9, 10, and 13.2 We will reverse.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
2 Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 stand objected to as
being ultimately dependent from a rejected base claim, but allowable if
Appeal 2009-002406
Application 10/758,543

2
The disclosed invention relates to an apparatus and method for driving
a liquid crystal display using digital gray data to drive a matrix of pixels
(Fig. 1; Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0001]). The apparatus includes a signal controller
to supply digital gray data representing an image, a digital/analog converter
to convert the digital gray data into analog voltages, and a data driver to
apply corresponding data voltages to pixels of the display matrix (Spec. ¶¶
[0006], [0007]; claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, and reads as
follows:
1. An apparatus for driving a liquid crystal display, including a
plurality of pixels arranged in a matrix, the apparatus comprising:

a signal controller supplying image data to a data driver and
generating digital gray data based on a distribution of grays of the image
data for one frame; and,

a digital/analog converter converting the digital gray data from the
signal controller into analog voltages and supplying the analog voltages
to the data driver as the gray voltages,

the data driver selecting data voltages corresponding to the image data
representing at least one gray from the gray voltages and applying the
data voltages to the pixels.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nitta US 6,801,178 B2 Oct. 5, 2004
Kitahara US 6,847,377 B2 Jan. 25, 2005

rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claims and any intervening claims.
Appeal 2009-002406
Application 10/758,543

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Nitta.3
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Nitta and Kitahara.
Claim 1 recites a digital/analog converter for “converting the digital
gray data from the signal controller into analog voltages and supplying the
analog voltages to the data driver as the gray voltages” (claim 1). Claim 9
recites “converting the digital gray data into analog voltages” (claim 9).
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 9, the
Examiner relies on Nitta’s elements 11 to 15 as teaching the recited
limitation of a digital/analog converter, and relies on DATA (see signal 5 in
Fig. 1) as teaching the digital gray data (Ans. 3-5).
Appellants argue, inter alia, (App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 5-6) that the
applied reference to Nitta fails to teach or suggest the digital/analog
converter of claim 1 which recites converting digital gray data into analog
voltages. More specifically, Appellants argue that (i) the display data 5
input to register control 11 and register 13 of Nitta is analog and not digital,
(ii) Nitta has analog signals going in and analog signals going out and
therefore does not need a D/A converter (App. Br. 9-10), and (iii) the word
“digital” does not appear in the Nitta reference (Reply Br. 5). Appellants
reason that since there are no digital inputs and no digital gray data in Nitta

3 Although the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), we note that Nitta has a publication date of October 5, 2004, which
is after the January 16, 2004 filing date of the instant application on appeal.
Relying on the July 25, 2001 filing date of Nitta, the proper basis for
rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). As neither the Examiner nor
Appellants have addressed this issue, we consider it harmless error for
purposes of this appeal.
Appeal 2009-002406
Application 10/758,543

4
to be converted into analog signals, no digital/analog converter is taught by
Nitta (Reply Br. 6).
With respect to the digital/analog converter recited in claim 1 and the
conversion of digital gray data into analog voltages recited in claim 9, Nitta
fails to teach a digital input consisting of digital data. Appellants correctly
argue that Nitta has no digital input to elements 11 to 15, and thus Nitta fails
to teach a digital/analog converter or any conversion from digital to analog.
Appellants argument that the Examiner has not shown that the display data 5
is digital is persuasive. Accordingly, Nitta fails to teach or suggest the
digital/analog converter as recited in claim 1 or the method including a
digital conversion as recited in claim 9. It follows that anticipation has not
been established by the Examiner because Nitta does not disclose each and
every limitation of the claimed invention set forth in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and
10. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With regard to the obviousness rejection, a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter set forth in dependent claims 4
and 13 has not been established by the Examiner because the teachings of
Kitahara fail to cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Nitta. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10
is not sustained because Nitta does not teach a digital to analog converter
and/or converting digital gray data into analog voltages. The obviousness
rejection of claims 4 and 13 is not sustained because the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning concerning the teachings of Nitta and Kitahara do not
Appeal 2009-002406
Application 10/758,543

5
support a legal conclusion of obviousness (KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

Haynes and Boone, L.L.P.
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas TX 75219