Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021001312 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 15/474,573 03/30/2017 Yukio IJIMA 005750-000003 7152 78198 7590 03/23/2022 Studebaker & Brackett PC 8255 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 Tysons, VA 22102 EXAMINER CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): info@sbpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUKIO IJIMA Appeal 2021-001312 Application 15/474,573 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Mitsubishi Electric Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001312 Application 15/474,573 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “provid[ing] a driver IC [(integrated circuit)] and a liquid crystal display apparatus which uses a circuit of an output channel which is not used to drive a liquid crystal panel as a backup of the other output channel.” Abstract. Claims 1-11 are pending. Appeal Br. 14-16. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference (emphases added): 1. A driver IC used to drive a liquid crystal display panel, comprising: a plurality of output channels outputting signals to each of a plurality of row wirings or plurality of column wirings in said liquid crystal display panel; a plurality of output buffer circuits corresponding to each of said plurality of output channels; and an output channel selection circuit selecting an output channel used to output a signal from said plurality of output channels in accordance with a preset number of channels, wherein said plurality of output buffer circuits comprise a plurality of pairs of two output buffer circuits, each of said plurality of pairs being connected to a corresponding output channel, said plurality of output channels include: a plurality of effective channels selected by said output channel selection circuit; and a plurality of ineffective channels configured to be controlled by the same output channel selection circuit as the plurality of effective channels, one of said two output buffer circuits of each pair of said plurality of pairs is assigned to an effective channel of said plurality of effective channels and the other is assigned to an ineffective channel of said plurality of ineffective channels, when a malfunction has not occurred in said output buffer circuit that is assigned to said effective channel, said output buffer circuit assigned to said ineffective channel is non- operational, and Appeal 2021-001312 Application 15/474,573 3 when a malfunction has occurred in said output buffer circuit that is assigned to said effective channel, said output buffer circuit that is assigned to said ineffective channel is switched as a back-up circuit for said output buffer circuit in which said malfunction occurs, thereby continuing output of signals from said effective channel. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). References and Rejections2 Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2011/0199355 A1; Aug. 18, 2011), in view of Hu (US 2014/0043375 A1; Feb. 13, 2014). Final Act. 3. Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Hu, and Murahashi (US 2010/0225635 Al; Sept. 9, 2010). Final Act. 9. Claim 11 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Hu, and Ura (US 2015/0124006 Al; May 7, 2015). Final Act. 10. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error, because “the Examiner interprets [Watanabe’s] ‘channel from DLA_G7 to OUT18’ and ‘channel from DLA_B7 to OUT18’ as ineffective channels,” “[h]owever, Appellant submits that such interpretation is incorrect and the Examiner misinterprets the operation of Watanabe.” Appeal Br. 10. Particularly, Appellant contends “Watanabe cannot be configured as in the presently claimed invention because it does not include 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-001312 Application 15/474,573 4 the ineffective channel,” as Watanabe’s “output terminals OUT17 and OUT18 are not configured to be selected by the output channel selection circuit but configured to be always used to output signals.” Reply Br. 2, 3. We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Specifically, we find the Examiner has misconstrued the claimed effective and ineffective channels. “The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is . . . an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes [the] invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). Here, Appellant’s Specification describes the output channels as the point of output of the driver IC signals. See Spec. 4 (“An output signal is input from the driver IC 11 to each source signal line of the liquid crystal display panel 10 via an output signal unit 14.”), and Fig. 3 (depicting output channels ch1 through ch6 as points of output). The effective and ineffective channels, in turn, are selected ones of the output channels; the effective channels are “used to drive the liquid crystal display panel” whereas the ineffective channels are “used as a backup.” Spec. 5, 11 (“[T]he backup (Fail-Safe) using the unused output buffer circuit (the ineffective Channel.”). Corresponding to what and how the inventor describes the invention, the effective channels are outputs of the driver IC that are used, and the ineffective channels are outputs of the driver IC that are unused. Claim 1 recites that the “output channels [are] outputting signals” to the display panel, and the effective and ineffective channels are controlled by “an output channel selection circuit.” Thus, consistent with the Appeal 2021-001312 Application 15/474,573 5 Specification, these effective and ineffective channels are outputs of the circuit. In contrast, the Examiner “is interpreting each of [Watanabe’s] output terminals OUT1 to OUT18 as being the end of a plurality of output channels,” and Watanabe’s signals are “output by the portion of the effective channels that are shared with the ineffective channel.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis added); Ans. 7. For example, the Examiner finds Watanabe’s “output terminal OUT17 . . . is part of both the effective channel and the ineffective channel.” Ans. 6. The Examiner’s construction is inconsistent with the Specification, because the Examiner treats output channels as comprising multiple portions (and thus capable of overlapping with each other), whereas Appellant’s Specification provides the output channels are the point of output. See Ans. 4 (“[A] plurality of output channels which are defined from DLA_Rl - DLA_B7 to OUTl - OUT18.”); compare Watanabe Fig. 20 (showing circuits between latch circuits DLAn and outputs OUTn) with Appellant’s Figs 2, 6 (showing output channels Chn as the outputs of circuits). We disagree with the Examiner that the recited channels are taught by Watanabe’s multiple portions of a circuit. Moreover, the Examiner relies on this construction for mapping the “ineffective channel,” because the Examiner finds the ineffective channels are portions of the circuit that combine, at the output, with the effective channels. See Ans. 5 (depicting ineffective and effective channels as merging at the output). These outputs, however, necessarily are used for driving the display panel, because they are also the outputs for the “effective circuits.” See id. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Watanabe teaches or suggests Appeal 2021-001312 Application 15/474,573 6 “ineffective channels,” as claimed, because the Examiner has not identified an output of Watanabe’s driver IC that is unused. See Reply Br. 2. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claim, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10 103 Watanabe, Hu 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10 3, 7 103 Watanabe, Hu, Murahashi 3, 7 11 103 Watanabe, Hu, Ura 11 Overall Outcome 1-11 REVERSED