Ex Parte Chung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2012

10166259 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/166,259 06/11/2002 In Jae Chung 8733.611.00-US 5377
7590 12/05/2012
Song K. Jung
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IN JAE CHUNG and JONG DAE KIM1
____________

Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES B. ARPIN, and DAVID C. MCKONE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a driving apparatus having a
discharge tube lamp comprising a DC power supplier for producing DC
power; an inverter for converting the DC power to AC power, wherein the
inverter responds to a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) frequency to

1 LG Display Co., Ltd. is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

2
modulate the DC power to produce the AC power; and a controller for
generating the PWM frequency, such that the PWM frequency has a duty-
on-time between about 40% to 100%.2 See generally Spec. ¶¶ [0025],
[0026]. Further, the invention is directed to driving methods of a discharge
tube lamp, which may utilize such driving apparatus and liquid crystal
displays including such driving apparatus. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with the disputed elements emphasized:
1. A driving apparatus having a discharge tube lamp, comprising:
a DC power supplier for producing DC power;
a burst mode inverter for converting the DC power to AC
power, wherein the inverter responds to a Pulse Width Modulation
frequency to modulate the DC power to produce the AC power,
wherein the AC power is pulse width modulated; and
a controller for generating the Pulse Width Modulation
frequency and adjusting a duty-on-time of the Pulse Width
Modulation frequency in the range of about 40% to 99%,
wherein the controller multiplies a frame frequency to generate
the Pulse Width Modulation frequency, and wherein the controller
adjusts the duty-on-time of the Pulse Width Modulation frequency to
be within 40% and 99% of one period of the Pulse Width Modulation
frequency.

2 We note that, throughout the Specification, as filed, Appellants describe a
PWM frequency in a range of 40% to 100%. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ [0026],
[0031], [0035], [00103]; see also claims 1, 6, and 10 (as filed). We cannot
find, however, where Appellants disclose an upper end of the PWM
frequency range of 99%. See Amendment, 7 (dated September 7, 2007;
amending claims 1 and 10 to replace the upper range limit of 100% with
99%.). The Examiner should consider whether the claimed upper end of the
PWM frequency range is supported by Appellants’ disclosure, as required
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hirakata (US 6,636,190 B2; issued Oct. 21, 2003; filed Aug.
23, 2001)). Ans. 3-5.3

ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER HIRAKATA
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Hirakata discloses the disputed limitations? In particular, did the
Examiner err in finding that Hirakata discloses a controller, (1) which
inherently generates the PWM frequency by multiplying a frame frequency
and (2) which adjusts a duty-on-time of the PWM frequency to within the
range of about 40% to 99% of one period of the PWM frequency?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim Construction.
We begin by construing the disputed limitation of claim 1. In
construing this limitation, we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise” is supplied by Appellants’ Specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We construe claim 1 as
reciting a controller that provides a PWM frequency to a burst mode
inverter; the inverter utilizes the generated PWM frequency to produce AC

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed
August 31, 2009; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January
20, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

4
power by modulating DC power. Specifically, the PWM frequency
provided to the inverter by the controller is (1) generated by multiplying a
frame frequency and (2) adjusted to a duty-on-time of 40% to 99%. See
Spec. [00135].
Appellants do not define expressly the term “frame frequency” in the
Specification, but provide an example of 60 Hz as “the frame frequency used
in driving the [liquid crystal display].” Id. A pertinent definition of “frame
frequency” is “[t]he number of times per second that the frame is completely
scanned in television,” and a pertinent definition of a “frame” is “[o]ne
complete coverage of a television picture.” MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS, 758 (4th ed. 1989). Thus, we conclude
that, within the context of this claim, the frame frequency is the number of
times per second that the driving apparatus drives the scanning of a frame.
In addition, Appellants state that a “duty-on-time” is equivalent to a “duty
cycle.” Spec. [0012]. “The duty-on-time (or duty cycle) corresponds to the
amount of time in which [a] transistor is turned on during one period of the
PWM frequency.” Id. A pertinent definition of a “duty cycle” is “[t]he ratio
of working time to total time for an intermittently operating device, usually
expressed as a percent,” and duty cycle also is known as “duty ratio” in
relevant contexts. MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL TERMS at 592.
2. Claim 1.
In order to find anticipation, the Examiner must demonstrate that a
single reference discloses every element of claim 1, as set forth in the
rejected claim, either expressly or inherently. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil
Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, in order to find
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

5
that Hirakata anticipates Appellants’ claim 1, the Examiner must
demonstrate that Hirakata discloses the identical invention “in as complete
detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868
F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner finds that Hirakata
discloses, expressly or inherently, every recited element of independent
claim 1. Ans. 3-4. Appellants argue, however, that Hirakata does not
disclose a controller which (1) generates the PWM frequency by multiplying
a frame frequency, and (2) adjusts a duty-on-time of the PWM frequency to
within the range of about 40% to 99% of one period of the PWM frequency.
Br. 12-13.
Referring to Hirakata’s Figures 18a-18e, the Examiner finds that
Hirakata discloses a duty-on-time of the PWM frequency within the range of
40% to 99%. Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hirakata
discloses duty-on-time of the PWM frequency of 50% (Figure 18c) and 75%
(Figure 18b), which the Examiner finds to be within the range described in
Appellants’ claim 1. Ans. 5. Nevertheless, Appellants argue that Hirakata’s
duty ratios described in Figures 18b and 18c relate to the backlight
brightness waveforms. Br. 13-14 (citing Hirakata, col. 8, ll. 36-43). Thus,
Appellants argue that, with respect to these figures, Hirakata is describing
the waveform of an image signal input (Figure 18a) and the brightness
waveform of a light source (Figures 18b-18e), rather than the output of the
controller to a burst mode inverter. Br. 13-14. From that, Appellants
conclude that the Examiner fails to demonstrate “a controller pulse width
modulation frequency relationship to a brightness waveform in Hirakata
including Figures 18(a)-18(e).” Br. 16.
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

6
The Examiner contends that this element is inherently disclosed in
Hirakata:
[i]t is clear to the examiner that . . . Fig. 20 clearly teaches that the
[PWM] frequency is a product of frame frequency and a
predetermined factor, therefore the controller must inherently be
multiplying the frame frequency by the factor to achieve the [PWM]
signal with the desired frequency.

Final Rej. 4 (mailed Jan. 29, 2009; emphasis in original); see also Ans. 4
(“Fig. 20a-e element vsync the pulse width frequency is derived from the
frame frequency just modulated differently which means the controller must
multiply the frame frequency to get the [PWM] frequency.”; emphasis
added). In particular, the Examiner finds that, in Figures 20a-20e, Hirakata
describes that the blinking period of the backlight, which is dependent on a
square wave, is changed specifically with respect to the vsync, a value
“derived” from frame frequency. Ans. 4, 6 (citing Hirakata, col. 43, ll. 50-
62).
In order to reject claim 1 as anticipated by inherency, the Examiner
must demonstrate that the element, which is not expressly disclosed in
Hirakata, is necessarily present in the improved lighting device described in
Hirakata. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances, however, is
not sufficient to demonstrate inherency. See id.
According to the Examiner, Appellants argue that “the [cold-cathode
fluorescent light (CCFL)] source should coincide with the video driving
frequency (Vsync) which supports the fact that the CCFL source is
controlled as a multiple to the Vsync.” Ans. 6. Nevertheless, Appellants’
acknowledgement that a result achieved by Hirakata may be desirable, does
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

7
not demonstrate that that result must necessarily be achieved by the
operation of the controller, as described in Appellants’ claim 1. Even if the
missing element could be present in Hirakata’s improved lighting device, the
Examiner fails to demonstrate that Appellants’ claimed structure must be
used to achieve Hirakata’s waveforms, as depicted in Figures 20a-20e, in the
manner recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that Figures 20a-20e “illustrate variations of
brightness waveforms of the light source,” rather than the output of a
controller to a burst mode inverter. Br. 13-14 (citing Hirakata, col. 8, ll. 49-
50 (emphasis in original)). These brightness waveforms correspond to an
image signal, e.g., a moving picture display. Id. at 17; see Hirakata, col. 8,
ll. 52-54. Thus, Appellants argue that the variations depicted in these figures
do not show the PWM frequency used to modulate DC power to produce AC
power in a burst mode inverter, as recited in claim 1. Id. Moreover, the
Examiner fails to demonstrate that the waveforms depicted in Figures 20a-
20e necessarily result from the operation of the controller, as recited in
Appellants’ claim 1.
We are persuaded that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Hirakata
discloses, expressly or inherently, every element of Appellants’ claim 1. For
the reasons set forth above, we find that the Examiner simply has not
provided sufficient evidence that a disclosure of the output of a light source
necessarily discloses the duty cycle range of the PWM frequency input from
a controller to an inverter. In addition, the Examiner has not shown that the
waveforms of Hirakata’s Figures 20a-20e necessarily disclose that the PWM
frequency input from the controller to the inverter is generated by
multiplying a frame frequency. Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain
Appeal 2010-007332
Application 10/166,259

8
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Whether the disputed
element of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
relevant art is not before us, and we decline to engage in such an inquiry
here in the first instance on appeal.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 6 and 10 which recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-14, for
similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14 under § 102(e).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk