Ex Parte Fish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2014

10569686 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID A. FISH and JASON HECTOR
____________________

Appeal 2012-009843
Application 10/569,686
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009843
Application 10/569,686

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows:
1. An active matrix display device comprising an array of
display pixels, each pixel comprising:
a current-driven light emitting display element;
a drive transistor coupled to the display element for driving a
first current through the display element;
a storage capacitor for storing a pixel drive voltage to control
the drive transistor to drive and stop driving the first current, to
control the drive transistor to stop driving the first current the storage
capacitor is discharged at a first rate compensating for ageing of the
display element;
a light-dependent device for detecting the brightness of the
display element, which determines the first rate; and
compensation circuitry for combining a compensation voltage
including a measured threshold voltage of the drive transistor with the
pixel drive voltage to compensate for variations in the threshold
voltage of the drive transistor.

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fish (D. Fish et al., “A Comparison of
Pixel Circuits for Active Matrix Polymer/Organic LED Displays,” SID 02
Digest, 968–971 (2002)). 1

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2 and 16–20. Appellants’
following statement is not an argument for patentability:
Appeal 2012-009843
Application 10/569,686

3
The Examiner rejected claims 3–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over various combinations of Fish and numerous other
references.2
The Examiner rejected claims 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Fish and Kondo (US
2003/0016190 A1, Jan. 23, 2003). 3
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
In pertinent part the referenced section of Fish states the
following:
During the driving period the photo-current from
the photodiode discharges the storage capacitor. At
any point in time the photo-current is proportional
to the brightness of the LED. Whilst the LED is

Dependent claims 2 and 16-20 respectively depend from claim
1 and accordingly are allowable for at least this reason as well
as for the separately patentable elements contained in each of
the claims. Accordingly, separate consideration of each of the
dependent claims is respectfully requested.
Br. 13. See 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.”). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3–15. Rather, Appellants
argue these claims only by referencing the argument for claim 1 from which
these claims depend. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 22–25. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-009843
Application 10/569,686

4
emitting light, the storage capacitor is discharged,
until the gate-source voltage of the driving
transistor reaches its threshold voltage.
In other words, in Fish the capacitor increases the gate-source
voltage of the driving transistor "[d]uring the driving period"
not "to stop driving the first current", as recited in the claims.
Br. 12 (emphasis added).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Fish does not teach, disclose, or suggest determining the first
rate. The recited first rate indicates the rate of discharge of
storage capacitor which compensates for ageing [sic] of the
display element.
Br. 12.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “the Final Office Action does not suggest
that Kondo remedies the above discussed deficiencies in Fish.” Br. 16.

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
Appeal Brief arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
Appeal 2012-009843
Application 10/569,686

5
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 18–20) in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Separately, as to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree because
Appellants fail to quote the entire passage. The next sentence in Fish states,
“The LED then stops emitting light.” Fish 970, § 4. It would be understood
by an artisan that contrary to Appellants’ argument, Fish teaches control to
“stop driving the first current” as claimed.
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree. Appellants’ own
Specification contradicts this argument. At page 4 of their Specification,
Appellants describe the circuit (as also found in Figure 8 of Fish) as using
the photodiode to discharge the gate voltage stored on the capacitor at a rate
determined as a function of the display element output to thereby provide
aging compensation. Further, we note that the title of Section 4 of Fish is
“Optical Feedback for Differential Aging Compensation.” It would be clear
to an artisan that the “degradation” referenced by the Examiner is said
“aging.”
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree because as
discussed above we find no such deficiencies in Fish.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–25 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1–25 are not patentable.
Appeal 2012-009843
Application 10/569,686

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–25 are affirmed.

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

msc