Ex Parte Bai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 7, 2014

11741877 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/741,877 04/30/2007 XiaoPing Bai BPMOT0056BB
(CS31594DE)
3861
27939 7590 04/08/2014
Philip H. Burrus, IV
460 Grant Street SE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30312
EXAMINER
SITTA, GRANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte XIAO PING BAI, JOHN P. BOOS, BHARAT N. VAKIL, and
ZHIMING ZHUANG

Appeal 2011-009438
Application 11/741,877
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009438
Application 11/741,877
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the rejection of
claims 1 through 20.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a dual sided electrophoretic display
having two regions where the operative display elements are larger in one
region than the other region. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A display assembly for use in an electronic device, the
display assembly comprising an electrophoretic display and a driver
circuit coupled thereto, wherein the electrophoretic display comprises
at least a first region and a second region, wherein at least the second
region is visible from both a front side and a rear side of the
electrophoretic display, further wherein a contrast ratio associated
with the second region, as viewed from the rear side, is greater than a
contrast ratio associated with the first region, as viewed from the rear
side.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6 through 11, and 13
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lu (US
2005/0093767 A1; May 5, 2005) and Kamiya (2005/0134549 A1; Jun. 23,
2005). Answer 4-12.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lu, Kamiya and Ikeda (2005/0174321 A1; Aug. 11,
2005). Answer 12-13.

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellants’ Brief dated November
29, 2010, Reply Brief dated May 12, 2011 and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 14, 2011.
Appeal 2011-009438
Application 11/741,877
3

The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lu, Kamiya and Kokubo (7,123, 945 B2; Oct. 17, 2006).
Answer 13.

ISSUES
Rejection of Independent claim 1
Appellants argue on pages 11 through 16 of the Appeal Brief, and
pages 7 and 8 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the
issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lu and
Kamiya teaches or suggests a display where the contrast ratio associated
with the second region, as viewed from the rear side, is greater than a
contrast ratio associated with the first region, as viewed from the rear side?

Rejection of Independent claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Appellants assert the Examiner’s rejection is
in error for the same reasons as claim 1. We do not find the arguments
directed to claim 1 to be commensurate in scope with claim 7. Appellants’
only arguments presented with respect to claim 1 center around the contrast
ratio limitations, which are not recited in claim 7. As such, Appellants’
arguments have not identified an error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
7, and thus there is no issue for us to decide with respect to claim 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and claims 8
through 15, which depend upon claim 7, pro forma.

Appeal 2011-009438
Application 11/741,877
4

Rejection of Independent claim 16
Appellants argue on pages 16 and 17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 8
and 9 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
16 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue of whether
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lu and Kamiya teaches or
suggests a driver circuit as claimed.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 6 but we
disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 7 through 20.

Rejection of Claims 1 through 6
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of these claims have
persuaded us of error. The Examiner on pages 14 through 19 of Answer,
finds that when combining the high definition and low definition display
area of the Kamiya with Lu, the claimed difference in contrast ratios will
exist for the same reasons it exists in the Appellants’ device. We disagree,
as Appellants argue, on pages 11 through 13 of the Appeal Brief, the
difference in contrast ratio is not only because of the difference in definition
(or size of pixel elements) but on the relationship between the size of the
pixel element and the drive transistor which obscures the pixel element. The
Examiner has not shown that the combination of Kamiya and Lu has the
same structure and thus the same properties. We also disagree with the
Appeal 2011-009438
Application 11/741,877
5

Examiner’s statement that when the teachings of the references are
combined, the contrast ratio of the second region is greater than the first
region “since the first display cannot be seen from the back.” Answer 14.
As argued by Appellants, on page 8 of the Reply Brief, for there to be a
contrast ratio, there must be a display. Appellants’ Specification defines a
contrast ratio as the “the ratio of the luminosity of the brightest and the
darkest color on the display. . .” Specification ¶ [026]. The Examiner has
not shown that one of the two portions of the display has a different contrast
ratio, only that one portion is visible from both sides (e.g. as seen in Lu’s
Figures 14, 21A and 22B display portion 52 (524) produces a display on
both sides but display portion 53 (534) only produces a display on one side
and as such there is no contrast ratio for the side with no display).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. The Examiner’s rationale for rejecting dependent claims 2 through
6, similarly rely upon the combination of Lu and Kamiya to teach the
limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 6.

Rejection of Claims 16 through 20
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of these claims have
not persuaded us of error. Appellants argue that Lu teaches two driver
circuits and that claim 16 recites “a driver circuit” which Appellants argue is
singular. Appeal Brief 16. In response to the Examiner’s finding, that Lu’s
dual driving circuit meets the claim, Appellants assert that the claim
limitations should be given their plain and ordinary meaning of only one
circuit. Rep. Brief 9. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and
Appeal 2011-009438
Application 11/741,877
6

find it contradictory to their Specification which states “the meaning of ‘a,’
‘an,’ and ‘the’ includes plural reference
. . .” Specification ¶ [019]. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Lu’s two
driver circuits meets the claimed “a driver circuit” when interpreted in light
of Appellants’ Specification. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 16. As Appellants have not presented
separate arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 17 through 20 we similarly sustain the rejection of claims 17 through
20.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is
affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

tj