Ex Parte Honbo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

10965806 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

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.
10/965,806 10/18/2004 Nobuaki Honbo N04452US 6530
21254 7590 11/29/2012
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
MOORAD, WASEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 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 NOBUAKI HONBO
____________

Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before, JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

2

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention concerns a method used to drive a surface light source, such
as a cold cathode fluorescent tube which lights up when a driving pulse is applied
from an inverter, in a liquid crystal display. (Spec. p. 1, ll. 10-14). The method
involves setting the frequency of the driving pulse voltage based on the floating
capacitance at different times. (Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A liquid crystal display device, comprising:
a liquid crystal panel;
at least one surface light source to uniformly illuminate said liquid crystal
panel; and
at least one surface light source driving section to apply a driving pulse
voltage to said surface light source that alternately powers-on and powers-off
said surface light source, each power-on period driving said surface light source
with repetitive pulses,
wherein, at least one frequency setting section is added, which lowers,
when a power-on transition occurs from an initial state of lighting of said
surface light source to its stabilized state, a set value of a frequency of said
repetitive pulses of said driving pulse voltage, said at least one frequency
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

3

setting section being controlled to include a compensation for a floating
capacitance related to said at least one light source.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 17-18 and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over US 6,268,681 (“Yamaguchi”) in view of US Patent Application
Publication 2004/0041782 (“Tachibana”) and further in view of US 5,892,336
(“Lin”).
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and further in
view of Applicant's Admitted Prior Art.
Claims 7-12, 19-20 and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and
further in view of Tachibana and Lin.
Claim 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and US Patent
Application Publication 2003/0098861 (“Nakatsuka”).
Claims 14 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and US
6,239,558 (“Fujimura”).
Claim 15 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and further in view of
Tachibana and Lin and Nakatsuka.
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

4

Claims 16 and 24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and
further in view of Tachibana and Lin and Fujimura.
Claims 25-26 and 29-30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and
US Patent Application Publication 2005/0068289 (“Diefanbaugh”).
Claims 27-28 and 31-32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and
further in view of Tachibana and Lin.

ANALYSIS
The sole issue raised by Appellant with respect to all claims is whether the
cited references as combined by the Examiner disclose using parasitic capacitance
of the cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) as a parameter to control the
frequency of repetitive driving pulses during power transitions. (Br. 10).
Accordingly, we address the patentability of claims 1-32 together and select claim
1 as representative of the group.
The Examiner finds that Lin’s disclosure at column 6, lines 13-24 of a shunt
capacitor applying compensation current due to floating/parasitic capacitance
teaches compensation for a floating capacitance related to at least one light source.
(Ans. 5). However, as discussed below, the Examiner’s reasoning focuses on the
change in resonant frequency resulting from incorporating Lin’s shunt capacitor,
rather than on the claimed limitation of controlling the frequency of the driving
pulses during power transitions (i.e., “at least one frequency setting section is
added, which lowers, when a power-on transition occurs from an initial state of
lighting of said surface light source to its stabilized state, a set value of a frequency
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

5

of said repetitive pulses of said driving pulse voltage, said at least one frequency
setting section being controlled to include a compensation for a floating
capacitance related to said at least one light source”).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s reasoning that Lin discloses a frequency
controller which controls the frequency of repetitive driving pulses as a
compensation for parasitic capacitance of a cold cathode fluorescent tube. (Br. 11).
Appellant argues that the compensation mechanism disclosed in Lin is based on
supplying current through a shunt capacitor interconnecting two light sources, as
contrasted with the method recited in Appellant’s claim 1 of changing the
frequency of the driving pulses. (Br. 11). According to Appellant, changing the
frequency of the repetitive driving pulses as claimed is an entirely different
mechanism from the compensation mechanism described by Lin. (Br. 13).
Appellant further argues that there is no evidence in Lin that a frequency setting
section controls or varies the shunt capacitance taking into account the parasitic
capacitance of the light source as pulse frequency is changed during power-on
transitions. (Id).
According to the Examiner, however, Lin’s shunt capacitor 36 compensates
for parasitic capacitance. At page 5, the Examiner’s Answer cites column 6, lines
13-24 of Lin, which discuss the parasitic capacitances 44a, 44b between at least
one of the cold cathode tubes 32a, 32b and respective adjacent devices 42a, 42b, as
shown in Figure 5. The Examiner notes that the additional capacitor increases the
current flow to the CCFL and the capacitance in the circuit. (Ans. 52-53). As a
result, the resonant frequency changes with the value of the compensating
capacitor 36. (Ans. 53). If the shunt capacitor value is low, the resonant frequency
decreases by a small amount. (Id.). The Examiner applies this analysis of Lin to
the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

6

The Examiner bases the rejection of claim 1on the combination of
Yamaguchi, Tachibana and Lin. The Examiner notes that at column 3, lines 3-10,
Yamaguchi discloses that as the system goes from an initial state to a stable state
the driving frequency decreases and approaches the resonant frequency. (Ans. 52).
The Examiner finds that Tachibana discloses the use of a driving pulse that
alternately powers the surface light source on and off. (Ans. 4-5). Appellant does
not dispute either of these findings. The Examiner reasons that incorporating Lin’s
shunt capacitor into the teachings of Yamaguchi and Tachibana, the resonant
frequency decreases by an amount depending upon the value of the capacitor.
(Ans. 53). In such a system, the gap the driving frequency must cover from the
initial state to reach the stable state resonant frequency depends upon the
compensation capacitor, with a smaller capacitor resulting in a smaller gap than
would exist if a larger capacitor is used. (Id.). Thus, the Examiner finds that the
addition of Lin’s shunt capacitor to a system as taught by Yamaguchi and
Tachibana constitutes providing a shunt capacitor as compensation for floating
capacitance to thereby control the driving frequency. (Ans. 53-54).
Claim 1 broadly recites that at least one frequency setting section lowers,
when a power-on transition occurs from an initial state of lighting of the light
source to its stabilized state, the set value of the frequency of repetitive driving
pulses to include compensation for floating capacitance related to at least one light
source.
The Examiner has explained that in the combination of Yamaguchi,
Tachibana and Lin, the resonant frequency is lowered as a result of adding the
compensation capacitor. However, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the
combination of references teaches a frequency setting section that lowers the set
value of the frequency of repetitive pulses, as Appellant points out is the claimed
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

7

subject matter. (Br. 11, 13). Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. The
feature of lowering the set value of the frequency of the driving pulses is also
found in independent claims 4, 7, 10, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Since all the remaining
claims depend from these independent claims, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-
32.

ORDER

The rejection of claims 1, 4, 17-18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 2-3 and 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and
further in view of Applicant's Admitted Prior Art is reversed.
The rejection of claims 7-12,19-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and
further in view of Tachibana and Lin is reversed.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and Nakatsuka is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and Fujimura is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and further in view of
Tachibana and Lin and Nakatsuka is reversed.
Appeal 2010-007426
Application 10/965,806

8

The rejection of claims 16 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and
further in view of Tachibana and Lin and Fujimura is reversed.
The rejection of claims 25-26 and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Tachibana and further in view of Lin and
Diefanbaugh is reversed.
The rejection of claims 27-28 and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamaguchi and
further in view of Tachibana and Lin is reversed.

REVERSED