Ex Parte Gettemy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13253739 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/253,739 10/05/2011 Shawn Robert Gettemy P11355US1 /APPL:0258 7670
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
12/02/2016 EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN ROBERT GETTEMY, JOSHUA GREY WURZEL,
JEAN-PIERRE SIMON GUILLOU, MING XU, and
DAVID ANDREW DOYLE
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to calibrating displays to improve
the white point uniformity between similar type devices. In one
embodiment, a backlight includes multiple strings of LEDs, where each
string is driven by a separate driver, or driver channel. Each string may be
separately tested at a base current to determine its emitted chromaticity, and
values indicative of the emitted chromaticities may be stored within the
backlight as calibration values. Abstract.
Claims 1 and 22, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A display, comprising:
a first string of first light emitting diodes;
a second string of second light emitting diodes;
a storage containing calibration values representing a first
emitted chromaticity of the first string when driven at a base
current in isolation and a second emitted chromaticity of the
second string when driven at the base current in isolation; and
a controller configured to determine a first driving strength
for the first string and a second driving strength for the second
string based on the calibration values.
22. A display, comprising:
a first string of first light emitting diodes configured to
emit a first chromaticity when driven at a first current when no
current is driven through a second string of second light emitting
diodes;
the second string of second light emitting diodes, the
second string being configured to emit a second chromaticity
when driven at the first current when no current is driven through
the first string of first light emitting diodes;
2
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
a storage containing a first color value representing the
first chromaticity and a second color value representing the
second chromaticity; and
a controller configured to determine a first driving strength
for the first string based on the first color value and the second
color value, and configured to determine a second driving
strength for the second string based on the first color value and
the second color value, wherein light with a mixed chromaticity
at a desired white point is produced when the first string is driven
with the first driving strength while the second string is driven
with the second driving strength, wherein the first driving
strength consists of a first driving current, a first driving duty
cycle, or combination thereof, and the second driving strength
consists of a second driving current, a second driving duty cycle,
or combination thereof.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
WANG US 2010/0110098 A1 May 6,2010
Atkins US 2010/0118057 A1 May 13,2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—6 and 8—13, 15—18, and 21—22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 102(b) as being anticipated by Atkins.
Claims 7, 14, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Atkins in view of Wang.
3
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Atkins discloses the limitations of:
“a storage containing calibration values representing a first emitted
chromaticity of the first string when driven at a base current in isolation and
a second emitted chromaticity of the second string when driven at the base
current in isolation” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8
and 15; and
a first string of first light emitting diodes configured to
emit a first chromaticity when driven at a first current when no
current is driven through a second string of second light emitting
diodes;
the second string of second light emitting diodes, the
second string being configured to emit a second chromaticity
when driven at the first current when no current is driven through
the first string of first light emitting diodes;
a storage containing a first color value representing the
first chromaticity and a second color value representing the
second chromaticity;
as recited in claim 22.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22
Appellants argue that Atkins fails to teach or suggest driving strings
of light emitting diodes at a base current in isolation from other strings of
light emitting diodes, as generally recited by independent claims 1, 8, 15,
and 22. According to Appellants, Atkins does not appear to disclose driving
one string of light emitting diodes at a base current in isolation while not
driving another string of light emitting diodes. Appellants assert that Atkins
4
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
only appears to disclose driving all of the LEDs, and Atkins does not appear
to drive a string or array of LEDs in isolation from another string or array of
LEDs. App. Br. 9; citing Atkins, para. 44.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Atkins discloses a first and a second array of LEDs
wherein driving current (i.e. base current) is used to drive a solid-state
illumination source (LEDs) applied to each or group of LEDs (i.e., paras. 29,
31, 43, and 44; Figs. 2 and 7; elements 60A and 60B of Fig. 7; Ans. 2).
Thus, when one group of solid-state illumination sources (LEDs) is driven
with a particular driving schema then that group of solid-state illumination
sources (i.e., LEDs of 60A) is driven in isolation because a separate driving
schema is used for another group of solid-state illumination sources (i.e.,
LEDs of 60B) (id.).
We further agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
term “in isolation” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. We give
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). However, although claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, when a string of one group of solid-state
illumination sources (LEDs) is driven at a given time period it would be in
isolation from another group of solid-state illumination sources (LEDs)
(Ans. 3). Therefore, when Atkins discloses driving one group of solid-state
illumination sources (LEDs) using a driving schema the solid-state
illumination sources (LED) would be in isolation (Ans. 3). This is
5
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
consistent with Appellants’ own disclosure that “[e]ach string may be
controlled independently by separate driver, or driver channel, which in turn
allows each string to be operated at a separate driving strength” (Spec. 6—7).
We refuse to import the limitation of “no current” into the limitations of
claims 1, 8, and 15, as part of the “isolation” limitation because that term
does not appear in these claims, and as such, we will not import that
limitation from Appellants’ Specification (para. 52).
Appellants also assert that a set of instructions to control a driving
current cannot properly be interpreted as calibration values representing
chromaticity, as generally recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (App.
Br. 11). Appellants submit that a set of instructions (i.e., driving schema)
supplied to two different colored LEDs would likely cause the LEDs to emit
different colors (id.). Appellants assert that Atkins fails to disclose the
limitation of “a storage containing calibration values representing first
emitted chromaticity of the first string . . . and a second emitted chromaticity
of the second string” as recited in claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 (App. Br. 10-11).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that under the broadest reasonable interpretation Atkins
discloses a driving schema (i.e., calibration values) representing emitted
chromaticity (i.e., color) of the illumination source (i.e., lights string group
60A) when the illumination source (i.e., light string) is driven at a base
current (i.e., driving current) (Ans. 3). Atkins discloses a storage containing
calibration value for a drive schema (i.e., Fig. 3, item 28) and discloses
calibration values (para. 46 and Fig. 4) for drive schemas 37-1, 37-2 and 37-
N, wherein the calibration (i.e., 37-1) used to drive a solid-state illumination
source (i.e., LED) in order to emit light having desired chromaticity and
6
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
when the solid-state illumination source (LED) is driven at a base current
(i.e., driving current) illumination source (LED) emits light of desired
chromaticity (para. 46 detected by color sensor 26 that generates a signal
which is sent to the calibration unit to establish a driving schema (i.e.,
calibration value) that is stored in storage unit (i.e., data store 28) (Fig 3 and
paras. 31—32; Ans. 3^4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Atkins
discloses a storage (Fig 3; item 28) containing calibration values (i.e., drive
schema) representing the emitted chromaticity (Ans. 3—4).
Appellants further argue that Atkins does not appear to disclose
driving different strings of light emitting diodes with the same base current
as recited in independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 (App. Br. 13).
We do not agree. The Examiner cited to Figure 7 (see supra) and
when we turn to the written disclosure of Figure 7, it is disclosed that
“[djrivers 62 A and 62B may apply the same driving signals to all of the
driven illumination sources or may apply individually-determined driving
signals to different ones of the illumination sources” (para. 59) (emphasis
added). Thus, there is an explicit teaching of using the “same” driving
signal to the different set of illumination sources 61A and 61B (i.e., all of the
illumination sources). While the Examiner asserted that the same current is
not required by the claim language (Ans. 4), we disagree because “the base
current” is referring back to “a base current”, and thus, the antecedent basis
dictates the same current being claimed. Nonetheless, the thrust of the
Examiner’s rejection regarding Atkins disclosing driving groups of LEDs in
isolation remains unchanged because the disclosure of Figure 7 cited by the
Examiner explicitly discloses “the same driving signals” being used.
7
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 22 fails to address the recited limitations of “when no current is driven
through a second string of second light emitting diodes” and “when no
current is driven through the first string of first light emitting diodes” (App.
Br. 10).
The Examiner did not respond to this argument (see Answer). The
Examiner pointed us previously to Figure 2 of Atkins for disclosing different
driving current schemes (supra). Atkins discloses driving each group of
LEDs under separate driving schemas, and one of the disclosed schemas is a
DC value (see in particular paras. 29 and 43; Fig. 2C). A DC value of zero,
or no current, constitutes a DC value of a driving current. Thus, under the
embodiment when the first group of LEDs 61A is driven under a first
schema (i.e., 60A) of a driving current 14 (i.e., Fig. 2A) and the second
group of LEDs 6 IB is driven under a second schema (i.e., 60B) of a driving
current 16 (i.e., Fig. 2C; including zero driving current), would meet the
limitation of “a first string of first light emitting diodes configured to emit a
first chromaticity when driven at a first current when no current is driven
through a second string of second light emitting diodes” as recited in claim
22. Furthermore, the embodiment of when the first group of LEDs 61A is
driven under a first schema (i.e., 60A) of a driving current 16 (i.e., Fig. 2C;
including zero driving current) and the second group of LEDs 61B is driven
under a second schema (i.e., 60B) of a driving current 14 (i.e., Fig. 2A),
would read on the limitation of “the second string of second light emitting
diodes, the second string being configured to emit a second chromaticity
when driven at the first current when no current is driven through the first
string of first light emitting diodes” as recited in claim 22. These schemes
8
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
are further supported by Figure 7 of Atkins as discussed above, disclosing
that “[djrivers 62 A and 62B may apply the same driving signals to all of the
driven illumination sources or may apply individually-determined driving
signals to different ones of the illumination sources” (para. 59) (emphasis
added). However, since the Examiner did not articulate this interpretation
of Atkins with respect to claim 22, and to the extent that we would be
changing the thrust of the rejection, we designate our findings with respect
to claim 22 as new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Atkins or under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as obvious over Atkins.
The claim would be anticipated because Atkins explicitly discloses
the possible schemes of driving signals as enumerated above. However, and
in the alternative, to the extent that the particular pattern of the same driving
current applied to a group of LEDs when no current is applied in the other
group of LEDs is selected from the possible driving current schemes
disclosed, would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention. This is because applying a driving current to a group of LEDs
and using no current in another group of LEDs would be within the skill of
an artisan choosing from a limited number of ways of determining the
chromaticity for a group of LEDs in isolation. In an obviousness analysis, it
is not necessary to find precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Mat421.
9
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 8, and
15. As to claim 22, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection and enter new
grounds of rejection.
Claims 4, 5, and 16
Appellants argue with respect to claims 4, 5, and 16 that Atkins does
not appear to include the term “coordinate” and like terms with respect to
chromaticity (App. Br. 13—14).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5) that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims, Atkins (para. 64, line 8—10) discloses calibration values (i.e., driving
schema) comprising chromaticity used to drive one or group of solid-state
illumination sources (LEDs) (Fig. 7). Because the polarities of solid-state
illumination sources (LEDs) are used in an apparatus wherein each one or
group of solid state illumination source (LEDs) are calibrated using
calibration values of chromaticity, the apparatus would have to have the
location (i.e., coordinates) of each one or group of solid-state illumination
sources (LEDs) in order to apply the appropriate calibration value of
chromaticity (Ans. 5). Thus, the calibration value comprises a set of
chromaticity coordinates in order to apply appropriate values (i.e., driving
schemas) to one of a group of solid-state illumination sources (LEDs) at the
particular coordinates (Ans. 5).
In the Reply Brief Appellants direct our attention to paragraph 45 of
their Specification and assert that “coordinates” refers to a chromaticity
diagram (Reply Br. 9). In other words, Appellants would like us to read the
disclosure of —chromaticity diagram— from the Specification into the claim
term “coordinate.” We decline such an interpretation because although
10
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at
1184.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, and
16.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9—14, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21
Appellants rely on the same arguments as those presented for claims
1, 8, ad 15 (App. Br. 15). Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiners’
rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-14, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 for the same
reasons articulated above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Atkins discloses the limitation of:
“a storage containing calibration values representing a first emitted
chromaticity of the first string when driven at a base current in isolation and
a second emitted chromaticity of the second string when driven at the base
current in isolation” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8
and 15.
The Examiner erred in finding Atkins discloses the limitations of:
a first string of first light emitting diodes configured to
emit a first chromaticity when driven at a first current when no
current is driven through a second string of second light emitting
diodes;
the second string of second light emitting diodes, the
second string being configured to emit a second chromaticity
when driven at the first current when no current is driven through
the first string of first light emitting diodes;
11
Appeal 2016-003578
Application 13/253,739
a storage containing a first color value representing the
first chromaticity and a second color value representing the
second chromaticity;
as recited in claim 22.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 is reversed and new grounds
of rejection are entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides a “new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under §41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R, § 41.50(b)
12