Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13718116 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/718,116 12/18/2012
65015 7590 08/23/2018
Treyz Law Group
870 Market Street, Suite 984
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Taesung Kim
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.
Pl7604US1 1167
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
docket@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAESUNG KIM and ADAM ADJIWIBA WA
Appeal2017-009240
Application 13/718, 116 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009240
Application 13/718,116
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to supplying power to electronic device
displays and, in particular, supplying transitional voltages during display
power state transitions. Spec. 3: 10--4: 16. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method of operating an electronic device display that
has an array of display pixels configured to receive data on data
lines from column driver circuitry, the method comprising:
with a voltage supply, supplying transitional voltages to
signal lines, wherein each of the signal lines is coupled to a
corresponding reference voltage input pin in the column driver
circuitry and supplies a given one of the transitional voltages to
its corresponding reference voltage input pin during power state
transitions for the column driver circuitry in which the column
driver circuitry transitions between a powered-down state and a
powered-on state, wherein the voltage supply that supplies the
transitional voltages is external to the column driver circuitry;
and
with the voltage supply, supplying normal column driver
reference voltages to the signal lines, wherein each of the signal
lines supplies a given one of the normal column driver
reference voltages that is different than the given one of the
transitional voltages to its corresponding reference voltage
input pin during normal operation of the column driver circuitry
in which the column driver circuitry is in the powered-on state.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-9 and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Imamura (US RE39,236 E; Aug. 15, 2006), Shino et
al. (US 2006/0227078 Al; Oct. 12, 2006), and Morita et al. (US
2008/0010475 Al; Jan. 10, 2008). Final Act. 3-12.
2
Appeal2017-009240
Application 13/718,116
Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Imamura, Shino, Morita, and Sakaguchi (US 7,633,476
B2; Dec. 15, 2009). Final Act. 12-19.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited
references.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "a voltage supply, supplying
transitional voltages to signal lines ... during power state transitions for the
column driver circuitry." Claim 1 further recites "the voltage supply,
supplying normal column driver reference voltages to the signal lines,
wherein ... the normal column driver reference voltages [are] different than
the given one of the transitional voltages ... during normal operation." The
Examiner finds the combination of Imamura and Shino teaches the
limitations of claim 1, except for the normal column driver reference
voltages being different than the transitional voltages. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner finds Morita teaches this limitation. Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Morita teaches a booster
circuit that provides a booster output to a gradation amplifier, which
provides voltages VO-V63 to the source driver. App. Br. 6 (citing Morita
Fig. 13). Appellants argue Morita teaches that although the output of
booster circuit 1 increases over time, the gradation amplifier, which provides
voltages to the source driver, is turned off while the booster circuit changes
voltages. Id. at 7 ( citing Morita Fig. 15). According to Appellants, the
3
Appeal2017-009240
Application 13/718,116
gradation amplifier is not turned on until the booster circuit voltage is
constant and, therefore, the gradation amplifier only provides the standard,
normal operation voltage to the source driver, contrary to claim 1.
In response to Appellants' arguments in the Answer, the Examiner
finds Shino teaches voltage input pins driven by different voltages, which
the Examiner considers transitional voltages. Ans. 3 ( citing Shino Figs. 7, 8,
11; ,r,r 174, 176, 198). The Examiner further finds Morita teaches "a
transition (change) of external voltage before it enters the pins (i.e. when [it]
passes through PMU) (see Fig. 13)." Id. at 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings regarding Shino are
erroneous because Shino is silent with regard to timing and the Examiner's
findings regarding "transitional voltages" are not clear. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants further argue the Examiner provides no findings explaining how
these newly cited portions of Shino would be incorporated into the
combination of references. Id. Appellants also contend the Examiner's
findings regarding Morita are conclusory and unsupported by the teachings
of the reference. Id. at 3--4.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds
Morita teaches transitional voltages that are different than normal reference
voltages, but the Examiner's findings rely on voltages that are not provided
to the source driver (the claimed "column driver circuitry"). As shown in
Figure 13, the relied-upon "transitional voltage" only changes inside the
power supply. Specifically, power supply PWU includes booster circuit 1
MVRl and gradation voltage generation circuit (gradation amplifier) SVG.
Morita Fig. 13. Pins VO-V63, which are labelled as an "output voltage,"
provide power to the source driver SDR. Id. As argued by Appellants,
4
Appeal2017-009240
Application 13/718,116
Morita teaches the output voltages VO-V63 do not change over time because
the gradation amplifier is not turned on until the voltage output of booster
circuit 1 is constant. See App. Br. 7 ( citing Morita Fig. 15). Thus, we agree
Morita fails to teach the recited "supplying transitional voltages to signal
lines, wherein each of the signal lines ... supplies a given one of the
transitional voltages to its corresponding reference voltage input pin during
power state transitions for the column driver circuitry" as claim 1 recites.
We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Shino teaches transitional voltages that differ from the
normal reference voltages. The Examiner's findings regarding Shino are not
adequately addressed and appear to contradict earlier findings regarding
Shino in the Final Action without explaining the change. Compare Ans. 3
(finding Shino teaches normal column driver reference voltages that are
different from transitional voltages) with Final Act. 4-5 (finding the
combination of Imamura and Shino does not teach normal column driver
reference voltages that are different from transitional voltages).
Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Imamura, Shino, and Morita. 2 We
also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, which recites
commensurate limitations, and claims 2-9 and 18-21, dependent therefrom.
Claims 10-16 stand rejected as unpatentable over Imamura, Shino,
Morita, and Sakaguchi. See Final Act. 12-19. The Examiner does not find
Sakaguchi teaches "a voltage supply ... configured to provide transitional
column driver voltage divider reference voltages to each of the reference
2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
5
Appeal2017-009240
Application 13/718,116
voltage input terminals during power state transitions," as recited in claim
10. See id. Accordingly, the Examiner does not find Sakaguchi cures the
deficiencies of Imamura, Shino, and Morita. We, therefore, also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 10-16 for the same reasons explained for
claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-21.
REVERSED
6