Ex Parte Dorjgotov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

12794623 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121794,623 06/04/2010
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
03/28/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EnkhAmgalan Dorjgotov
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.
APPL:0223/ FLE
P9533US1
CONFIRMATION NO.
9185
EXAMINER
PARK, SANGHYUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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@fyiplaw.com
hill@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ENKHAMGALAN DORJGOTOV, ZHIBING GE, MING XU,
CHENG CHEN, YOUNG BAE PARK, JOHN Z. ZHONG, WEI CHEN,
and SHAWN ROBERT GETTEMY 1
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, 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, 3, 4, 12-26, 30, and 31, which are all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 2, 5-11, and 27-29 were cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to preventing or reducing gray scale
inversion in high-contrast liquid crystal display panels. Spec. i-fi-1 2-6.
Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a liquid crystal display having a plurality of pixels with a
liquid crystal material disposed between two liquid crystal
alignment layers not symmetric to one another, and having
upper and lower polarizing layers respectively above and below
the two liquid crystal alignment layers, wherein light
transmittance through the plurality of pixels increases
monotonically as gray scale voltages increase and wherein:
the liquid crystal display is configured to operate using a
gray scale level 0 voltage that is higher than a minimum gray
scale level 0 voltage capability of the liquid crystal display; or
liquid crystal molecular alignment axes of the two liquid
crystal alignment layers are offset from one another by an offset
angle other than a multiple of 180 degrees; or
at least one of a first polarizing axis associated with the
upper polarizing layer and a second polarizing axis associated
with the lower polarizing layer is substantially non-parallel and
substantially non-perpendicular to one of the liquid crystal
molecular alignment axes of the two liquid crystal alignment
layers to prevent or reduce gray scale inversion, wherein gray
scale inversion causes light transmittance not to increase
monotonically with all gray scale voltages, that would
otherwise occur if the at least one of the first polarizing axis and
the second polarizing axis were parallel or perpendicular to the
first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid
crystal molecular alignment axis; or
any combination thereof.
2
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12-26, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsui (US 2008/0204647 Al; Aug. 28,
2008); Lin (US 2006/0061710 Al; Mar. 23, 2006); and Allen et al. (US
2003/0193636 Al; Oct. 16, 2003). Final Act. 2-23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight the following additional
points.
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Lin, and Allen. App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 2--4. In
particular, Appellants argue claim 1 and the other independent claims recite
layers that in a first arrangement would experience gray scale inversion and
in a second arrangement would experience reduced or no gray scale
inversion. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Matsui does not teach
anything related to gray scale inversion, including preventing or reducing
gray scale inversion. Id. at 11. Appellants argue Matsui' s teachings relating
to the arrangement of alignment films and polarizers is unrelated to gray
scale inversion. Id. at 11.
3
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
Appellants further argue Lin does not remedy Matsui's deficiencies.
Id. at 11-12. Appellants argue the claims are limited to "voltage-based"
gray scale inversion because claim 1 recites gray scale inversion "causes
light transmittance not to increase monotonically with all gray scale
voltages." Id. at 11-12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that instead of
addressing voltage-based gray scale inversion, Lin addresses angle-based
gray scale inversion. Id. at 11-12. Regarding Allen, Appellants argue that
although Allen teaches methods of addressing gray scale inversion, Allen
does not teach arranging layers to reduce or prevent gray scale inversion
and, therefore, does not remedy Matsui's deficiencies. Id. at 11-12.
Appellants also argue Allen does not provide any indication that Lin's
teachings would apply to voltage-based gray scale inversion, rather than
angle-based gray scale inversion. Id. at 11-12.
The Examiner concludes the claims are not limited to "voltage-based"
gray scale inversion because the only claim limitation defining gray scale
inversion recites that the inversion "causes light transmittance not to
increase monotonically with all gray scale voltages," which is the definition
of gray scale inversion itself, according to the Examiner. Ans. 26. Applying
this definition, the Examiner finds Lin and Allen teach preventing gray scale
inversion. Final Act. 4-6; Ans. 26.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Matsui teaches alignment film ORI2 is substantially
non-parallel to the direction of polarizer P2. Ans. 23-24 (citing Matsui
i-f 90). The Examiner finds Matsui does not teach aligning layers as claimed
to prevent or reduce gray scale inversion, but Lin so teaches. Ans. 24-25.
4
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
Appellants and the Examiner disagree as to whether the claims are
limited to "voltage-based" gray scale inversion. Appellants argue the claim
limitation "gray scale inversion causes light transmittance not to increase
monotonically with all gray scale voltages" restricts the claims to voltage-
based gray scale inversion. We disagree. Allen teaches
Yet another viewing angle characteristic that can be observed is
substantial non-uniform behavior of gray scale voltage changes
and even the occurrence of gray scale inversion. The non-
uniform behavior occurs when the angular dependent
transmission of the liquid crystal layer does not monotonically
follow the voltage applied to the layer. Gray scale inversion
occurs when the ratio of intensities of any two adjacent gray
levels approaches a value of one, where the gray levels become
indistinguishable or even invert. Typically, gray scale inversion
occurs only at some viewing angles.
Allen i-f 5 (emphasis added). In other words, Allen teaches angular
dependent transmission "causes light transmittance not to increase
monotonically with all gray scale voltages," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is not limited to
voltage-based gray scale inversion. Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error because Appellants have not provided persuasive argument
or evidence that the Examiner's findings regarding Lin and Allen's
teachings of preventing or reducing gray scale inversion are in error.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Lin, and Allen. We also sustain the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 12, 21, 30, and 31, and dependent claims 3,
4, 14-20, and 22-26, for which Appellants do not offer separate arguments.
See App. Br. 12.
5
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
Dependent claim 13
Claim 13 recites (emphasis added):
The electronic display of claim 12, wherein the at least one of
the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis
substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular
to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second
liquid crystal molecular alignment axis is offset from being
parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular
alignment axis or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment
axis by an angle configured to cause the pixel to transmit a
reduced amount of light in the absence of an electric field than
that which would be transmitted by the pixel if both the first
polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis were parallel or
perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment
axis and the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis in
the absence of the electric field.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Lin, and Allen. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4-6.
In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner misread the limitations in claim
13 and disregarded necessary limitations. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants argue
the initial "or" in the claim refers to a selection between the "at least one
polarizing axis being substantially non-parallel and substantially non-
perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the
second liquid crystal alignment axis." Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Appellants
argue this selection does not preclude the rest of the claim from having
patentable weight. Appellants argue Matsui "fails to disclose a molecular
alignment axis offset from being parallel or perpendicular to another
alignment axis by an angle configured to cause the pixel to transmit a
reduced amount of light in the absence of an electric field, as generally
recited by the remainder of dependent claims 13." Id. at 13.
6
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
The Examiner concludes claim 13 can be properly divided into two
parts. According to the Examiner, the first part of the claim is "wherein the
at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis
substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular to the first
liquid crystal molecular alignment axis." According to the Examiner, the
second part of the claim is "or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment
axis is offset from being parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal
molecular alignment axis."
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 13 contains
several "or" limitations. Claim 13 recites "the at least one of the first
polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis" and clarifies that these axes
are "substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular" to one
of two axes: "the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second
liquid crystal molecular alignment axis." Claim 13 then continues that the
modified "the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second
polarizing axis" "is offset from being parallel or perpendicular to the first
liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal
molecular alignment axis by an angle configured to cause .... "
Accordingly, the first "or" limitation does not separate the claim into
two parts as proposed by the Examiner. This is clear because the
Examiner's proposed first clause, "wherein the at least one of the first
polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis substantially non-parallel and
substantially non-perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular
alignment axis" is grammatically incomplete. The "or" limitation adds
additional limitations, including a verb, that completes this portion of the
sentence. Further, the "or" limitation joins two liquid crystal molecular
7
Appeal 2016-005619
Application 12/794,623
alignment axes in the claim-a "first" and a "second." The "or" limitation
refers to a selection between these "first" and "second" axes, not a
separation of the entire claim into two parts.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the portion of claim 13
after the first "or" is not optional. The Examiner does not find that Matsui
teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 and, therefore, has not
established that Matsui teaches or suggests claim 13. Accordingly, we are
constrained by this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 12,
14-26, 30, and 31.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8