Ex Parte Chang-Chian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13451018 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
13/451,018 04/19/2012 Po-Chuan Chang-Chian SUND-1404 7373
23995 7590
Rabin & Berdo, PC
1101 14TH STREET, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
SHAH, SUJIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
firm @ rabinberdo .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PO-CHUAN CHANG-CHIAN, CHUN-YI CHOU,
WING-KAI TANG, CHING-CHUN LIN, and
CHIH-WEI TANG
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,01s1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—15, and 17—22, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 6 and 16
have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Novatek
Microelectronics Corp. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 9, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed February 22, 2017 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 22, 2016 (“Ans.”); Examiner’s
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,018
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A data transmission method applied in a display, the
display comprise[s] a display driving system and a display panel,
the display driving system having a host controller and n display
drivers, wherein the n display drivers are for driving the display,
and n is a natural number greater than 1, the data transmission
method comprising:
providing a communication link under mobile industry
processor interface (MIPI) between the host controller and the n
display drivers;
determining n virtual channel values Vcl, Vc2, ..., and
Vcn corresponding to the respective n display drivers;
receiving a control command via the communication link
under MIPI from the host controller, wherein the control
command comprises a virtual channel parameter;
an ith display driver among the n display drivers operating
according to the control command when the virtual channel
parameter of the control command indicates an ith virtual channel
value Vci among the n virtual channel values, wherein i is a
natural number smaller than or equal ton; and
the remaining n-1 display drivers among the n display
drivers discarding the control command when the virtual channel
parameter of the control command indicates the ith virtual
channel value Vci.
References
Schindler US 2008/0234005 A1 Sept. 25,2008
Matsuda US 2010/0309173 A1 Dec. 9,2010
Advisory Action mailed February 2, 2016 (“Adv. Act.”); and Final Office
Action mailed October 22, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
2
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,018
Boucher
Diard
Tai
Yuan
US 2011/0157193 A1
US 7,995,003 B1
US 2012/0110215 A1
US 2012/0242628 A1
June 30, 2011
Aug. 9,2011
May 3, 2012
Sept. 27, 2012
Examiner s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 8—12, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Boucher, Diard, and Matsuda. Final Act. 2—15.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boucher, Diard, Matsuda, and Yuan. Id. at 16—22.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boucher, Diard, Matsuda, and Tai. Id. at 22—24.
Claims 7, 17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boucher, Diard, Matsuda, and Schindler. Id. at 24—
29.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.39(a)(1).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions with respect to independent
claims 1 and 11, and we adopt as our own (1) the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning set forth in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken, (2)
the Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Advisory Action, and (3) the
Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the
following points for emphasis.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Boucher and Matsuda teaches “n display drivers ... for driving [a]
3
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,018
display . . . [and] providing a communication link under mobile industry
processor interface (MIPI) between the host controller and the n display
drivers,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 5—
6; Reply Br. 2—\. Specifically, Appellants argue Boucher teaches “three
GPUs are coupled to an equivalent number of display devices, not coupled
to a single display device” and Boucher “does not disclose a GPU having a
host controller and multiple display drivers for driving the display.” Reply
Br. 4. Appellants further argue “Matsuda describes a communication link
under MIPI for a mobile device, and fails to disclose the communication link
under MIPI in a display driving system.” App. Br. 5 (emphases omitted).
Additionally, Appellants argue “nothing in any of the prior art references . . .
provides any teaching that may have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Boucher, Matsuda, or Diard to provide” the claimed features.
App. Br. 6 (emphases omitted).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Boucher
teaches multiple display drivers, i.e., “GPUO, GPU1 and GPU2,” which
“render[] the graphics of display 107.” Final Act. 30 (citing Boucher 130,
Fig. 3); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Boucher Fig. 2); see Boucher Fig. 1, || 24, 27—
30. The Examiner further finds (Ans. 7; Adv. Act. 2; Final Act. 6, 30), and
we agree, Matsuda teaches “MIPI (Mobile Industry Processor Interface)
standards that prescribe ... an interface between an application processor
and a peripheral device,” e.g., “[a] display drive device” (Matsuda 115).
Appellants’ argument that Boucher’s “three GPUs are coupled to an
equivalent number of display devices, not coupled to a single display
device” (Reply Br. 4) does not address the Examiner’s finding that Boucher
teaches embodiments in which a single display is driven by multiple GPUs.
4
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,018
Specifically, the Examiner finds, in Figure 3 of Boucher, a single display —
DisplayO 107 — is driven by multiple GPUs — GPUO 101, GPU1 103, and
GPU2 105. Final Act. 30 (citing Boucher 130, Fig. 3); Adv. Act. 2 (citing
Boucher Fig. 2); see also Boucher Fig. 1, || 24, 27—30. Appellants do not
present persuasive arguments addressing Boucher’s single display driven by
multiple GPUs.
Further, we disagree with Appellants’ argument that Matsuda “fails to
disclose the communication link under MIPI in a display driving system.”
App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Paragraph 15 of Matsuda teaches
according to the MIPI (Mobile Industry Processor Interface)
standards that prescribe common specifications for a so-called
CPU interface, which is an interface between an application
processor and a peripheral device of a mobile device, the
application processor functions as a host to control operation of
the peripheral device. A display drive device which uses a
control signal usually starts display operation as defined by a
command control. Such the display drive device starts screen
display in response to a start-up command transmitted to the
display drive device from the host after power source is
activated.
That is, Matsuda teaches MIPI standards provide communication between
hosts and peripherals and Matsuda further teaches, or at least suggests, those
peripherals are display drive devices. Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments
do not address the Examiner’s combination of Boucher, which teaches that a
host interfaces with a display driver, with Matsuda, which teaches MIPI
interfaces, to teach collectively that the host interfaces with the display
driver using a MIPI interface. Final Act. 6, 30; Ans. 7.
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that “nothing in any of the prior
art references . . . provides any teaching that may have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher, Matsuda, or Diard” (App. Br. 6
5
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,018
(emphases omitted)) is not persuasive because demonstrating an express
teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art is not required in
determining obviousness under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418—419 (2007). The Examiner articulates reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the combination of Boucher and Matsuda,
i.e., “reduc[ing] the amount of space taken by wiring and to prevent breaking
of wiring by utilizing same bus lines with different peripheral devices”
(Final Act. 6, 30), and “provid[ing] communication interface between the
host processor and the n display drivers in order to achieve a high-speed
transmission between the host processor and the n display drivers with less
lines and with less power consumption” (Ans. 7). Appellants do not provide
any persuasive argument or evidence addressing the Examiner’s articulated
reasons for the combination.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by improperly
combining Boucher and Matsuda or erred by finding the combination of
Boucher and Matsuda teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claims 1 and 11. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We likewise sustain the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2—5, 7—10, 12—15, and 17—22, for which
Appellants offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability. See
App. Br. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 7—15, and
17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal 2017-005826
Application 13/451,018
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(f).
AFFIRMED
7