Ex Parte Sarrasin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

13879405 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

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