Ex Parte SarrasinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201713879405 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/879,405 04/14/2013 Denis Sarrasin 95781.17120 9022 30734 7590 09/22/2017 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304 EXAMINER PARK, SANGHYUK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2017 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com edervis @bakerlaw.com patents @ bakerlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENIS SARRASIN1 Appeal 2017-001682 Application 13/879,405 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—13, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Commissariat A L’Energie Atomique et Aux Energies Alternatives of Paris, FRANCE as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-001682 Application 13/879,405 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s described and claimed invention is generally directed to controlling the luminance of a display screen including an active matrix of pixels, each pixel including a light-emitting diode. See Spec. 120.2 Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows (with the disputed limitation emphasized)'. 1. A method for controlling a luminance of a display screen including an active matrix of pixels, each pixel in the active matrix of pixels including a light emitting diode having two electrodes, an anode and a cathode respectively, one of said anode and said cathode being a common electrode to all the pixels of the active matrix of pixels, and at least one control Metal Oxide Semiconductor (MOS) transistor configured to control current flowing in the light-emitting diode according to information on luminance to be displayed, the method comprising: writing an image from a video signal row by row over a frame duration, a frame blanking duration being provided between a writing of a last row of a first frame and a writing of a first row of a following frame, and a row blanking duration being provided between a writing of a row and a writing of a following row, wherein, for displaying a given image with a desired attenuation of mean luminance, a first fixed potential is imposed periodically on the common electrode of the light- emitting diodes enabling light emission by the light-emitting diodes in the active matrix of pixels alternately with a second fixed potential blocking light emission, with a variable duty cycle according to the desired attenuation, and 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 24, 2015 (“Final Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Mar. 17, 2016 (“App. Br.”) and Reply Brief filed Nov. 8, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 5, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Apr. 14, 2013 (“Spec.”). 2 Appeal 2017-001682 Application 13/879,405 using a switch for actively switching a potential of the common electrode between the first fixed potential and the second fixed potential for certain desired attenuations at instants during row blanking durations. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2004/0041525 Al; published Mar. 4, 2004) (“Park”) and Nam et al. (US 2010/0066723 Al, published Mar. 18, 2010) (“Nam”). ANALYSIS Appellant argues the combined teachings of Park and Nam do not teach or suggest writing an image from a video signal row by row, including “a row blanking duration being provided between a writing of a row and a writing of a following row” and “using a switch for actively switching a potential of the common electrode between the first fixed potential and the second fixed potential for certain desired attenuations at instants during row blanking durations,” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 3. App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant also argues there is no rational motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nam into Park, and the Examiner is relying on hindsight in doing so. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 3—5. The Examiner finds that Park teaches the claimed feature of “actively switching a potential” because Park “teaches a switch SW that ‘selectively’ connects] the cathode terminal of the electro-luminescence cell OLED to either the common voltage source VCC or a ground voltage source GND.” Ans. 8 (citing Park Fig. 8, | 67). The Examiner relies on Nam as teaching a 3 Appeal 2017-001682 Application 13/879,405 row blanking period: “[t]he feature being combined into Park regards the operation and relationship between timing controller and the data drivers, and to enhance Park’s teaching regarding non-luminous time to be a row blanking period as Nam prior art specifically teaches.” Id. Regarding the combination of Park and Nam, the Examiner finds as follows: Park already teaches switching between ground GND and common voltage VCC in non-luminous time lb during a frame as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Since Park’s non-luminous time lb is not luminous and does not perform data driving, it shares similar characteristics of row blanking period or vertical blanking period in an OLED display. Park prior art did not particularly mention that non-luminous time can be row blanking period. Nam prior art was introduced to teach that non-luminous time could be Nam’s row blanking period and that a change in common voltage can happen during row blanking period. In other words, there are similarities between row blanking period in Nam and non- luminous time lb of Park in terms of their functionality as an element in display operation, which provides enough ground for [a person of] [] ordinary skill[] in the art to consider combining Park and Nam prior art[], Ans. 10. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In particular, we agree with Appellant’s argument the Examiner has not provided sufficient articulated reasoning having rational underpinning such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Nam’s blanking period to carry out the claimed active switching in the non- luminous time of Park so as to render obvious the subject matter of claims 1 and 3. App. Br. 8—9; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Although the Examiner finds there are “similarities” between the “row blanking period” in Nam and the “non-luminous time lb” in Park, we 4 Appeal 2017-001682 Application 13/879,405 agree with Appellant’s argument these are two different time periods because “[t]he non-luminous time in Park is associated with a drive signal and a data signal, whereas the blank period in Nam is associated with a data enable signal when RGB data are not transmitted to the display unit in Nam.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues, and we agree, “Park switches only during luminous times” and “[n]o switching occurs during non- luminous times when the data signal and the scan signal are applied.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Park || 80, 81). Thus, Appellant argues, and we agree, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art having the knowledge only of Park would have no motivation to then think about performing any switching during the non- luminous time, given that Park explicitly requires switching before the data and scan signal are applied in the non-luminous time.” Id. at 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 3, as well as dependent claims 2 and 4—13. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—13 for obviousness under § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation