Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 20, 2016

12066553 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/066,553 03/12/2008 60803 7590 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 620 Herndon Parkway Suite 320 Herndon, VA 20170 10/20/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yong-Jae Lee 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 432-0003 1693 EXAMINER FOX, JOSEPH PATRICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2016 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 YONG-JAE LEE Appeal2015-004958 Application 12/066,553 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 16, 18-23, 27, and 49. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, and 34--48 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 5. Claims 2, 7, 11, 13-15, 17, 24--26, and 28-33 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-004958 Application 12/066,553 Exemplary Claim 16. A column driver integrated circuit, comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive, as a received signal, a data signal and a clock signal, wherein the clock signal is embedded within the data signal and has a different amplitude than the data signal, and to separate the clock signal from the data signal using amplitude difference of the received signal, and to perform sampling of the data signal from the received signal using the separated clock signal to output the data signal; a data latch configured to sequentially store and output image data included in the data signal; and a DAC configured to convert the image data from the data latch to an analog signal and output the analog signal. Rejections Claims 16, 18-21, 27, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 2003/0006997 Al, Jan. 9, 2003) and Suzuki (US 4,809,090, Feb. 28, 1989). Final Act. 6-10. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa, Suzuki, and Lofstrom (US 5,416,484, May 16, 1995). Id. at 10-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. 2 Appeal2015-004958 Application 12/066,553 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ogawa and Suzuki teaches a "clock signal is embedded within the data signal" and "to separate the clock signal from the data signal," as recited in independent claim 16. The Examiner finds, and we agree, the disputed limitations of claim 16 are met by the combination of Ogawa and Suzuki, as explained on pages 4 through 7 of the Answer. We adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. In particular, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that Suzuki explicitly discloses separating the data signal and the clock signal. Suzuki, col. 5, 11. 51-55. Furthermore, Appellant's arguments are not commensurate in scope with the broad claim language. For example, in the Reply Brief Appellant contends, "Even assuming arguendo that Ogawa's control circuit 15 'necessarily has to associate the received signal with a clock signal,' Ogawa would still lack any teaching or suggestion that such a clock signal to be associated is one that has been extracted from being embedded within the data signal." Reply Br. 5 (underline omitted). However, the claim language does not recite this feature. "[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As to the rejection of claims 22 and 23, Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Ogawa, Suzuki, and Lofstrom because Lofstrom does not cure the deficiencies of Ogawa and Suzuki (App. Br. 15- 3 Appeal2015-004958 Application 12/066,553 16). As set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Ogawa, Suzuki, and Lofstrom teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 22 and 23. Thus, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 16, 18-23, 27, and 49. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 16, 18-23, 27, and 49 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4