Ex Parte Baek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

10608187 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HEUME IL BAEK and GI HONG KIM
____________________

Appeal 2011-009825
Application 10/608,187
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009825
Application 10/608,187

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claim 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The disclosed invention is directed to alignment method for
ferroelectric liquid crystal material and liquid crystal display device using
the same. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of driving a ferroelectric liquid crystal display
device including a liquid crystal panel having a plurality of data
lines, a plurality of gate lines, a plurality of thin film transistors
arranged in a zigzag configuration along a direction of the data
line and a ferroelectric liquid crystal material, wherein a
plurality of pixels are defined by crossing the gate lines and the
data lines, and one data line is arranged between adjacent
pixels, the method comprising:
supplying a plurality of gate voltages to the plurality of
gate lines during an electric field alignment of the ferroelectric
liquid crystal material, wherein each of the gate voltages is set
at a level higher than a threshold voltage of the thin film
transistor, the gate voltages are generated in a range of from ten
to four-hundred times during the electric field alignment, and
each gate voltage is simultaneously supplied to the plurality of
gate lines;
supplying a first data voltage for the electric field
alignment to the plurality of data lines in response to each gate
voltage, wherein a polarity of the first data voltage is inverted
every time when the gate voltage is supplied;
sequentially supplying a plurality of scan pulses to the
plurality of gate lines during normal driving for image display,
wherein each of the scan pulses is generated for one horizontal
period and is supplied to one of the plurality of gate lines; and
supplying a second data voltage for the image display to
the plurality of data lines in response to each scan pulse,
Appeal 2011-009825
Application 10/608,187

3
wherein a polarity of the second data voltage is inverted every
time when the scan pulse is supplied.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claim on
appeal is:
Saishu US 5,949,391 Sep. 7, 1999
Hasegawa US 6,335,717 B2 Jan. 1, 2002

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Saishu.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The Examiner maintains that there is insufficient antecedent basis for
the claimed limitations “the data line,” “the thin film transistor,” “the gate
voltage,” and “the scan pulse” due to the use of “a plurality of . . . ”
introducing the claim terms. (Ans. 4-5; Final Rej. 2-3). The Appeal Brief is
silent with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (App. Br. 5).
Appellants’ Notice of Appeal states, “Applicants hereby appeal to the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences from the Final Office Action
dated February 18, 2010, finally rejecting claim 1.” Therefore, the rejection
Appeal 2011-009825
Application 10/608,187

4
is before the Board. We summarily affirm the rejection since Appellants
have not shown error therein.  Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1205.02 (8th ed., Oct. 2005) (“If a ground of rejection stated by
the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground of
rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).

35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend:
Hasegawa et al. and Saishu et al., whether taken individually or
in combination, fail to teach or disclose at least a claimed
combination including at least a feature (1) of “one data line is
arranged between adjacent pixels;” a feature (2) of “supplying a
plurality of gate voltages to the plurality of gate lines during an
electric field alignment of the ferroelectric liquid crystal
material;” a feature (3) of “the gate voltages are generated in a
range of from ten to four-hundred times during the electric field
alignment, and each gate voltage is simultaneously supplied to
the plurality of gate lines;” and a feature (4) of “sequentially
supplying a plurality of scan pulses to the plurality of gate lines
during normal driving for image display,” as recited by
independent claim 1.
(App. Br. 6-7). Appellants recite the language of four elements of the claim
and provide no specific arguments for patentability. With respect to feature
(3), Appellants contend, “in Hasegawa et al., each signal Vg is applied to
two adjacent scanning lines 24 or scanning lines included in each group. In
Saishu et al., each scan signal is applied to one signal line” and Appellants
summarily contend that the references do not disclose the feature. We find
Appellants’ argument to be a general argument to patentability rather than a
Appeal 2011-009825
Application 10/608,187

5
specific argument for patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”);
cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.”). Therefore, Appellants’ general argument for patentability does not
show error in the Examiner’s reasoned conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner goes through each of the claim limitations disputed by
Appellants and provides further commentary. (Ans. 10-15). Appellants
have not filed a Reply Brief to further address the Examiner’s proffered
combination. Therefore, we accept the Examiner’s further clarifications and
Appellants’ general argument for patentability does not show error in the
Examiner’s reasoned conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants refer to Figure 10 and paragraph [0076] of the
Specification, but Appellants do not show a nexus with the discussion to the
specific claim limitations or the applied prior art combination. (App. Br. 7-
8). The Examiner maintains, “the features upon which Appellants rely (i.e.,
‘positive(+) polarity voltage is applied to odd data lines and a negative(-)
polarity voltage is applied to even data lines during an electric field
alignment’) are not recited in the rejected claim.” (Ans. 14). We agree with
the Examiner that Appellants’ discussion is not expressly recited in the
Appeal 2011-009825
Application 10/608,187

6
language of independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellants’ argument does not
show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness and we sustain the
rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 based upon
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claim 1 based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 are
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bab