Ex Parte Hiraki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2014

11362866 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KATSUYOSHI HIRAKI
____________________

Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7 and 21. Claims 8-20 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a liquid crystal
display device which is suitable for the display of moving pictures and more
particularly relates to a liquid crystal display device in which the liquid
crystal response speed is increased, and blurring of the moving pictures is
suppressed (Spec. 1, ll. 12-16).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A liquid crystal display device in which a voltage
corresponding to image data is applied to a liquid crystal layer
for each frame so that a transmissivity of said liquid crystal
layer is varied to a transmissivity that corresponds to said image
data, the liquid crystal display device comprising:
a liquid crystal display panel including said liquid crystal
layer, a plurality of gate lines, a plurality of data lines, and
pixels at intersection positions of said gate lines and data lines;
back lighting configured to supply light that passes
through said liquid crystal layer; and
a liquid crystal control circuit unit including a frame
memory that stores image data corresponding to said frame, and
configured to read out image data from the frame memory and
apply a voltage corresponding to the image data to the liquid
crystal layer of pixels via said data lines;
Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866

3
wherein said back lighting includes a first back lighting
unit configured to supply light to a first display region that has
first gate lines of said liquid crystal display panel, and a second
back lighting unit configured to supply light to a second display
region that has second gate lines of said liquid crystal display
panel,
wherein said liquid crystal control circuit unit is
configured to perform, during one frame period, start driving
that drives the pixels at a first voltage corresponding to said
image data, and hold driving that drives the pixels at a second
voltage corresponding to said image data, successively, for said
first display region, and then said start driving and hold driving,
successively, for said second display region, and
wherein the liquid crystal control circuit unit is
configured to light said first back lighting unit at the same time
of or later than the end of the start driving in said first display
region, and light said second back lighting unit at the same time
of or later than the end of the start driving in said second
display region.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ishii US 2004/0012551 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Honbo US 2005/0062681 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
Yamamoto US 2005/0162584 A1 Jul. 28, 2005

Claims 1-4, 7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Honbo and Yamamoto.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Honbo, Yamamoto, and Ishii.

Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866

4
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Honbo and Yamamoto teaches or would
have suggested
a liquid crystal control circuit unit . . . configured to perform,
during one frame period, start driving . . . at a first voltage . . .
and hold driving . . . at a second voltage . . . successively, for
said first display region, and then said start driving and hold
driving, successively, for said second display region.
Claim 1 (emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Yamamoto
1. Yamamoto discloses a liquid crystal display device comprising
a display unit with each emission area of a backlight is divided into a first
emission unit 214, a second emission unit 224, a third emission unit 234, and
a fourth emission unit 244 in order of the image scan direction (p. 6,
¶ [0097]; Fig. 14).
2. A sequential emission periods 140-170 for the emission units
214- 244, respectively, are different in respective emission timing and are
displaced in time in order of the image scan direction (p. 6, ¶ [0098]; Fig.
15).

Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866

5
IV. ANALYSIS
As for claim 1, although Appellant concedes that “Yamamoto teaches
four emission units that are applied a voltage via a screen scan signal,”
Appellant contends that “Yamamoto does not teach the start and hold
driving” (App. Br. 25). However, the Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious over the combined teachings of Honbo and Yamamoto, and the test
for obviousness is not what a reference shows individually, but what the
combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 recites a liquid crystal display “device” comprising a “liquid
crystal control unit” wherein the unit is “configured to” perform “start
driving . . . at a first voltage” and “hold driving . . . at a second voltage.” We
find such “configured to” language to merely represent a statement of
intended use of the liquid crystal control unit comprised in the claimed
device, which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will not
limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the
invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Thus, we give claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation as merely
requiring a control unit capable of driving and holding at first and second
voltage.
We also note that claim 1 does not define what the first and second
voltage includes or represents. In fact, claim 1 does not even require that the
“first voltage” and the “second voltage” be separate and distinct. Thus,
Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866

6
claim 1 merely requires that the liquid crystal control unit be capable of
driving and holding at a voltage.
Yamamoto discloses a liquid crystal display device with a plurality of
display regions (FF 1), wherein the pixels in the regions are driven
successively at a voltage (FF 2). As Appellant concedes, “Yamamoto
teaches four emission units that are applied a voltage via a screen scan
signal” (App. 25). Subsequently, we find no error with the Examiner’s
findings that Yamamoto at least suggests a control unit capable of driving
and holding at a first and second voltage, as required by claim 1. In fact, we
find no structural difference between the claimed liquid crystal control unit
and that of Yamamoto.
Furthermore, even if we were to consider the start and hold driving
intended function of the control unit, we find no error with the Examiner’s
finding that “Fig. 15 of Yamamoto imply a first voltage and hold voltage
being applied to the pixels for start and hold driving” (App. Br. 23, citing
Examiner Interview). In fact, even Appellant admits that such start and
“hold” voltage is well-known (Spec. 1-2, Admitted Prior Art). Thus, we
find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claim 1 over
Honbo in view of Yamamoto.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over the combined teachings of Honbo and Yamamoto. Further,
independent claims 2 and 21 and claims 3, 4, and 7 (depending from claims
1 and 2) which have not been argued separately (App. Br. 25), fall with
claim 1.
Appellant also does not provide arguments for claims 5 and 6 separate
from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 26). Accordingly, we also find no error in
Appeal 2011-003542
Application 11/362,866

7
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 over Honbo and Yamamoto in
further view of Ishii.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is 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