Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2016

12213112 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/213, 112 06/13/2008 9629 7590 03/18/2016 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jun Hyeok Yang 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. 41501-5868 8504 EXAMINER SOTO LOPEZ, JOSE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2016 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): patents@morganlewis.com karen.catalano@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN HYEOK YANG Appeal2013-009427 Application 12/213, 112 Technology Center 2600 Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and, IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. Claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ), and we reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "[a] driving circuit of a liquid crystal display device and a method for driving the same, which are capable of reducing manufacturing cost of the liquid crystal display device and reducing a luminance deviation so as to improve image quality." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows with disputed limitations emphasized: Appeal2013-009427 Application 12/213, 112 1. A driving circuit of a liquid crystal display device, the driving circuit comprising: an LED backlight which includes a plurality of LED modules arranged in a plurality of division areas and generates light; an internal photosensor which is mounted in any one of the plurality of division areas, for detecting a luminance value; a detector which detects the luminance values of the division areas, in which the internal photosensor is not included, through an external photosensor and supplies the luminance values to the controller; a controller which generates and outputs a plurality of control signals for changing respective luminance values of the plurality of division areas according to the luminance value detected by the internal photosensor; and a plurality of LED drivers which drive the plurality of LED modules according to the plurality of control signals, wherein the controller compares the luminance value of the first division area supplied from the internal photosensor with the luminance values of the second to fourth division areas supplied from the external photosensor, and generates the plurality of control signals according the compare result, wherein the controller sets the control signals, in which the gain values or the duty ratios are changed, such that the luminance value of the first division area and the other division areas become equal, and supplies the control signals to the LED drivers such that all the luminance values of the division areas become equal, wherein the controller sets the control signals, in which the duty ratios or gain values of the second to fourth division areas are sequentially adjusted on the basis of the luminance value and the duty ratio of the first emission area is detected by the internal photosensor in real time, wherein the plurality of LED drivers adjust the supply times or intensities of the driving currents supplied to the LED modules and output the driving currents, according to the received control signals. 2 Appeal2013-009427 Application 12/213, 112 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as unpatentable over Johnson (US 6,608,614 Bl; Aug. 19, 2003). Ans. 2-8; 1 Final Act. 2-11. CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses every recited element of claim 1. Ans. 2-5. Appellant, on the other hand, argues that Johnson lacks the recited internal and external photosensors, and instead includes a first and second photodiode that have the same position with respect to the first and second LED arrays. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant, additionally, asserts that, even if Johnson's first and second photodiodes were the internal and external photosensors, each photodiode only measures its own alleged division. Thus, according to Appellant, Johnson does not disclose a detector which detects the luminance values of the division areas (i.e. more than one luminance value) through an external photo sensor and supplies the luminance values to the controller, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. ISSUE Under Â§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Johnson discloses "a detector which detects the luminance values of the division areas, in which the internal photosensor is not included, through an 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 4, 2013 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed May 24, 2013 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 23, 2013 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2013-009427 Application 12/213, 112 external photosensor and supplies the luminance values to the controller," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 as anticipated by Johnson. As an initial matter, we emphasize that the claims are rejected here as anticipated by Johnson. "[A]nticipation of a claim underÂ§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim .... " In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F .2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation. " Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F .2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir 1986). We agree with Appellant that Johnson fails to disclose "a detector which detects the luminance values of the division areas, in which the internal photosensor is not included, through an external photosensor and supplies the luminance values to the controller." App. Br. 9. Namely, as Appellant points out, claim 1 expressly requires a detector, which is external to the division area where the internal photosensor is located, to detect and supply to the controller luminance values of the division areas, i.e. more than one value for more than one division area. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner relies on Johnson's photodiode 7 6 for the internal photosensor and Johnson's photodiode 78 as the claimed detector. Ans. 9-- 10. The Examiner, then, explains that Johnson's Figure 6 shows that the second LED array may include plural division areas. Ans. 10-11. We agree 4 Appeal2013-009427 Application 12/213, 112 that Johnson's second LED array may include more than one division area. Neither the claims nor specification define a division area such that it would preclude different portions of a single LED array from each being a division area. Nevertheless, Johnson only discloses providing a single luminance value forthe entire second LED array. See, e.g., Johnson, col. 5, 11. 16-18 ("the luminance L2 of second LED array 3 0 is measured by second photodiode 78."); see also Johnson, col. 5, 11. 26-28)(noting that second photodiode 78 measures luminance L2 of the second LED array). As such, Johnson fails to disclose "a detector which detects the luminance values of the division areas, in which the internal photosensor is not included, through an external photosensor and supplies the luminance values to the controller," as required by claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claim 6 that recites commensurate limitations; and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under Â§ 102. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 is reversed. REVERSED 5