Ex Parte Scheibe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

11836110 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111836,110 08/08/2007
25235 7590 04/21/2016
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - Colorado Springs
TWO NORTH CASCADE A VENUE
SUITE 1300
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul 0. Scheibe
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.
M-16380-lDUS 2622
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, CAROLYN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 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):
patentcoloradospring@hoganlovells.com
HLUSDocketing@hoganlovells.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PAUL 0. SCHEIBE
Appeal2014-007426
Application 11/836,110
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1---6, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Landmark Screens LLC as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007426
Application 11/836,110
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method for fault-healing in a
light emitting diode (LED) based display.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant language italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for fault-healing in a light emitting diode (LED)
based display, comprising:
providing in each pixel of the display LEDs of four or
more primary colors and diagnostic circuitry for electrically
detecting fault in the LEDs of the pixel; and
for each pixel,
(a) receiving a signal specifying a light intensity and a
color to be displayed by the pixel;
(b) using the diagnostic circuitry of the pixel, detecting if
a fault in the form of an open circuit exists in an LED of one of
the primary colors;
( c) when no fault is detected, driving the LEDs of the pixel
with currents to achieve the specified light intensity and color;
and
( d) upon detecting the fault, driving the LEDs of the pixel
in the primary colors without fault with currents to achieve the
specified light intensity and color.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Silverstein et al. us 4,800,375 Jan.24, 1989
Takeda et al. us 5,303,072 Apr. 12, 1994
Nara et al. US 2002/0047565 Al Apr. 25, 2002
Hekstra et al. US 2005/0179675 Al Aug. 18, 2005
2
Appeal2014-007426
Application 11/836,110
THE REJECTION
Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hekstra in view of Silverstein, Nara, and Takeda. Final
Act. 5-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
The Examiner finds Nara teaches a pixel containing "diagnostic
circuitry for electronically detecting faults in the LEDs" and "using the
diagnostic circuitry of the pixel" to determine if there is an open circuit as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5. More specifically, the Examiner
finds Nara teaches that each pixel has a forward voltage drop detection
circuit for detecting faults. Id. (citing Nara Fig. 5, item 52)
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Nara teaches
providing fault detection circuity in each pixel. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 7-8.
Instead, Appellant argues Nara teaches using detection circuitry that is
shared among all of the pixels. App Br. 5 (citing Nara Fig. 6). As for the
forward voltage drop detector shown in Nara Fig. 5, it is drawn in
"imaginary lines" indicating that it is not actually present in the pixel. Reply
Br. 7. Instead, as shown in Nara Fig. 6, the "voltage drop detection circuit
52 is accessible and shared among all pixels through selection switch 30."
Id.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred in finding Nara teaches individual detection circuitry used
3
Appeal2014-007426
Application 11/836,110
by each individual pixel as opposed to shared circuitry. See Nara Fig. 6,
i-f 90. Nara Figure 6 is reproduced below:
Fi g.6
50
/
i r---m·~----··-::~-~~~;~~:~:~~;:~;~~:~:;:;;;;:;;::·;_;;;;:~::::::::::::::--m••·~--mmm;~:~~~~~!};~
~ v'Q ~ C .b ,;:: C· 0 C 0 t) :o <_: ~-·· t...9 i ~··~~-·, ,tk: ... ~-...-,iOJ;l !
! VG'< : \-~ '\;· ···----- ··· ··· ··· ·-- ·-- --- \-...,_, .............................. , : ,.i,,,,,it . ~
! s::i -..._ \ 1~·-"---l- .r..s .. _;_4_ i .. t. {. .. + ... ; . : i t52 si
! ,----:-1\'-- -~ .. J .. J .... i .. --i----+-~--~/' 11 : I! ____ -- .. ,..-.,::·:--::i.,,
.. -'--<.:-"' . ' ' , ••--:::..{um ... m•-r-·+--~··--->m+--•-1-:•ri . .f : : • 2"- ' ·"""'' ,.l){f,.,h ; : : :·· •· • '--T·--·1 ·-·r·T--Ti---T-- ! ·,..,. r 1 ! ! ! j ::··::·::···-.·~::·~:,-·. . l get"l:::n;.i.k·n ~,,-:;---1' ''"~·-···'·+···'---··•···--'-----"-· . . . .. . ' .... I : i : u.....J<-11.N.W dt.R-<-IJiJH ·--i_ ... ~m::wl . . . j
.I 27 i • ,. .. _____ _,28 I
f:on:.ro~ ·:.:j~r:&f ,/LLJ
........._ __ ..... ~
Figure 6 is a schematic circuit diagram of an evaluation device for the
organic EL display disclosed in Nara. A.s shown above in Figure 6, there is
a single forward voltage detection circuit that is shared by all of the pixels.
Id. Because we find that the cited sections of Nara do not teach each
individual pixel having fault detection circuitry as recited in claim 1, we are
constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
along with the rejections of dependent claims 2-6.2
2 Because we agree with Appellant on at least one dispositive issue, we need
not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments.
4
Appeal2014-007426
Application 11/836,110
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1---6.
REVERSED
5