Ex Parte Sarma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

12107271 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/107,271
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
04/22/2008
04/13/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kalluri R. Sarma
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.
H0008217 Dl
(002.2365Dl)
CONFIRMATION NO.
9416
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, JIMMY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KALLURI R. SARMA, JERRY A. ROUSH,
and JOHN SCHMIDT
Appeal2014-003924
Application 12/107,271
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TT TT-.i. TC"I,,........,. T""ti. ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1 w 11'\J ~UK, Aamznzsrranve rarem Juage.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20. (App. Br. 4.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 11, and 17 are withdrawn
from consideration. (App. Br. (Claims App'x) 21, 23, 24.) Claims 8 and 15
are cancelled. (App. Br. (Claims App'x) 22, 23.)
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Honeywell
International, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-003924
Application 12/107,271
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to the field of flat
panel displays, and more specifically . . . to an improved Active Matrix
Organic Light Emitting Diode (AM OLED) display and method of wide
dynamic range dimming in such a display .... " (Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1,
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. An Organic Light Emitting Diode display, comprising:
a plurality of rows of Organic Light Emitting Diodes
coupled to a power supply;
a plurality of Pulse Width Modulation signal
generators;
at least one circuit comprising:
a first transistor, said first transistor coupled to a
row address bus of said display and a column address
bus of said display;
a second transistor, said second transistor coupled
to said first transistor and coupled directly to one
Organic Light Emitting Diode of said plurality of rows
of Organic Light Emitting Diodes;
a storage capacitor, said storage capacitor coupled
to said first transistor and said second transistor;
a third transistor, said third transistor coupled to
the one Organic Light Emitting Diode of said plurality
of rows of Organic Light Emitting Diodes and to one of
said Pulse Width Modulation signal generators such
that the third transistor is configured to Pulse Width
Modulate a current through a selected one of said rows
of Organic Light Emitting Diodes and control a light
emission thereof, and
a fourth transistor, said fourth transistor directly
coupled to said third transistor, said second transistor,
the one of said Organic Light Emitting Diodes, and the
one of said Pulse Width Modulation signal generators,
2
Appeal2014-003924
Application 12/107,271
wherein a gate of said fourth transistor is directly
coupled to a gate of the third transistor, said fourth
transistor operable to further control said light emission
of said Organic Light Emitting Diode in cooperation
with the third transistor.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kwon (US 2003/0227262 Al;
Dec. 11, 2003.) (See Final Act. 6-11.)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ono et al. (US 2004/0174354 Al;
Sept. 9, 2004; hereinafter "Ono"). (See Final Act. 11-15.)
Claims 16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kim et al. (US 7,365,742 B2; Apr. 29, 2008; hereinafter
"Kim"). (See Final Act. 15-16.)
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kwon. (See Final Act. 17-18.)
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ono. (See Final Act. 18-19.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Sept. 30, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Dec. 19, 2013) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Apr. 22, 2008) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Aug. 15, 2013) and Answer
("Ans." mailed Dec. 11, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
of the Examiner.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is as
follows: Does any one of Kwon, Ono, or Kim disclose "Pulse Width
3
Appeal2014-003924
Application 12/107,271
Modulation [ (PWM)] signal generators," as recited in independent claims 1,
10, and 16?
ANALYSIS
In finding that each of Kwon, Ono, and Kim inherently discloses a
PWM signal generator (see Final Act.6, 11, 15), the Examiner reasons that
any square wave generator falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation
of a PWM signal generator, and that selection of components to establish a
pulse width comprises modulating. (See Ans. 15-16.) Appellants contend
"such an interpretation is unreasonably ... broad in light of Appellants'
specification which clearly spells out the nature and function of a PWM
generator to the extent that those of skill in the art would immediately
understand what a PWM generator is after reading Appellants'
specification." (Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec, i-fi-126 and 42).) We agree with
Appellants for the reasons stated by Appellants.
As used in the art, pulse width modulation is synonymous with pulse
duration modulation, McGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND
COMPUTER ENGINEERING 458 (2004), which means "produc[ing] a pulse of
proportional duration by varying the leading, trailing, or both edges of a
pulse," id. at 456 (emphasis added). (See also "modulate," id. at 371.) We
conclude the ordinary meaning of a PWM signal generator is a device that
generates a signal comprising pulses having a variable width for modulating
another signal. This meaning is consistent with the Specification. (See, e.g.,
Spec. i-fi-126, 42). Accordingly, we conclude the ordinary meaning is the
broadest reasonable meaning of PWM generator.
4
Appeal2014-003924
Application 12/107,271
The Examiner is correct that each of Kwon, Ono, and Kim inherently
or explicitly discloses a pulse signal generator that generates pulses having a
width. However, the Examiner has not shown that Kwon's, Ono's, or Kim's
pulse signal generators inherently (i.e., necessarily) generate a variable
pulse, i.e., are pulse width modulation (PWM) signal generators.
Additionally, we agree with Appellants that changing the components of a
pulse generator to vary the characteristics of its output does not amount to
pulse width modulation. (See Reply Br. 3.) As pointed out by Appellants,
"[a]ll circuits will change outputs when their physical components are
changed." (Id.) Such changing of components at most evidences that
Kwon, Ono, and Kim inherently disclose predetermining a pulse width of
the pulses to be generated by the pulse signal generator. It does not disclose
that those pulses are inherently of variable width, i.e., are width modulation
pulses, In essence, the Examiner's claim construction reads "modulation"
out of the claims. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)
("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that
claim against the prior art.").
The Examiner has not established that "each and every element as set
forth in [claims 1, 10, and 16] . . . is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Therefore, Appellants
have demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1, 10, and 16.
Accordingly, constrained by this record, we do not sustain the rejections of
claim 1 10 and 16, and claims 3-7, 9, 12-14, and 18-20, which variously
depend from claims 1, 10, and 16.
5
Appeal2014-003924
Application 12/107,271
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16,
and 18-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6