Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2018

14026183 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/026,183 09/13/2013
23413 7590 05/16/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seong-Yong Hwang
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
21C0317USC 2229
EXAMINER
LAM, VINH TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEONG-YONG HWANG, AN-NAP ARK,
WEON-SIK OH, JIN-KWAN KIM, SUNG-LAK CHOI, KYUNG-
LAE RHO, HYO-HWI CHOI, JU-YONG KIM,
and DONG-HA LEE
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a display panel with pixel electrodes that
have first signal lines and a second signal line branched into portions electrically
coupled to one of the first signal lines. Spec. ,r 11.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A display apparatus comprising:
a display panel comprising a plurality of first signal lines
elongated in a first direction, and arranged adjacent to each other in a
second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first
direction; and
a first film comprising a base, and a plurality of second signal
lines elongated in the first direction,
wherein
one second signal line of the first film is branched into a
plurality of second signal line portions spaced apart from each other
and arranged adjacent to each other on the base of the first film in the
second direction, each of the second signal line portions elongated on
the base of the first film in the first direction, and
the second signal line portions of the one second signal line are
electrically connected to one of the first signal lines.
2
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 6-39 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Jung (US 2003/0117567 Al; published June 26, 2003) and
Shiota (US 6,111,628; issued Aug. 29, 2000). 2 Final Act. 3-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Jung, Shiota, and Igarashi (US 2002/0140662 Al; published
Oct. 3, 2002). Final Act. 13-16.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jung and Shiota teaches
or suggests "second signal line portions spaced apart from each other and arranged
adjacent to each other on the base of the first film in the second direction, each of
the second signal line portions elongated on the base of the first film in the first
direction" and "electrically connected to one of the first signal lines," as required
in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 6-39
The Examiner finds Jung teaches first signal lines (gate (2 0 )/ data ( 18) lines)
elongated in a first direction, and adjacent to each other in a second direction
perpendicular to the first direction, and second signal lines (gate driving signal
transmission line group (28)) elongated in the first direction. Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner finds Shiota teaches a signal line ( electrode pad ( 4)) branched into a
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 6, 2017
("Br."); Final Office Action dated December 2, 2016 ("Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer dated May 4, 2017 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183
plurality of signal line portions (bump electrodes (5a/5b )), arranged adjacent to
each other and electrically connected to another signal line ( 6) ). Final Act. 4--6.
The Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of Jung with Shiota's branching into a plurality of signal line portions to
enhance reliability of the electrical connection. Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue Shiota does not teach the plurality of second signal line
portions arranged adjacent to each other in a second direction and elongated in the
first direction, as required by claim 1. Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellants contend
that if Shiota teaches first and second signal lines elongated (i.e., with the longer
dimension) in a first direction (see Br. 16; Shiota Fig. 2) and adjacent to each other
in a second direction (see Br. 16; Shiota Fig. 4), then the second signal line
portions are adjacent to each other in a first direction, not a second direction, as
claimed. Br. 13-14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Here, the Examiner relies
on Jung, not Shiota, as indicated by Appellants, for the second signal lines
arranged adjacent to each other in a second direction and elongated in the first
direction. See Final Act. 3--4, 6; see Ans. 7. The Examiner only relies on Shiota
for teaching that signal lines, like the second signal lines of Jung, can branch into a
plurality of signal line portions spaced apart and arranged adjacent to each other, to
enhance the reliability of the electrical connection. See Final Act. 3---6; Ans. 4;
Jung Fig. 1; Shiota Fig. 2. As such, the combination of Jung and Shiota teaches
second signal lines ( as taught by Jung) branched into second signal line portions
arranged adjacent to each other (as taught by Shiota) in the second direction and
elongated in the first direction (as taught by Jung). See Final Act. 3---6; see Ans. 4,
7. Appellants' argument, addressing Shiota individually rather than the
4
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183
Examiner's proposed combination of Jung and Shiota, does not demonstrate
Examiner error.
Appellants further argue that Shiota's plurality of second signal line portions
are the same length on each side and, therefore, not elongated in the first direction
when physically combined with Jung. Br. 17; see Br. 14--15. Appellants also
argue Shiota's second signal line portion (5b) would electrically connect with more
than one first signal line when combined into Jung. Br. 1 7; see Br. 15-16.
Appellants' arguments regarding the physical incorporation of Shiota's
signal line portions onto Jung's second signal line are not persuasive. The
Examiner's proposed rejection is not based on the bodily incorporation of Shiota's
signal line portions, i.e., incorporating Shiota's particularly shaped and sized bump
electrodes (5a/5b) directly onto Jung's second signal line. See In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
( citations omitted) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference ... , the test is what the combined teachings of ... [those] references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Rather, the Examiner
proposes modifying Jung with Shiota's general teaching that signal lines can
branch into smaller signal line portions to electrically connect to another signal
line, for purposes of enhancing electrical connection reliability. Final Act. 6.
Because Appellants have not asserted that the proposed modification would have
been beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we "take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ," and find the combined teachings of the Jung and Shiota references
would have suggested the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
with those difficulties in physically combining the references being within her
5
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183
level of skill. KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007); see also id.
at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Jung and Shiota teaches "second signal line portions spaced apart
from each other and arranged adjacent to each other on the base of the first film in
the second direction, each of the second signal line portions elongated on the base
of the first film in the first direction" and "electrically connected to one of the first
signal lines," as required in claim 1. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 6-39 depend from claim 1. Br. 24--30,
Claims Appendix. Appellants do not present separate arguments for dependent
claims 2, 3, and 6-39. Br. 18. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
2, 3, and 6-39 for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Appellants argue Igarashi does not remedy the
deficiencies in Jung and Shiota, as argued for claim 1. Br. 19-21.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
combination of Jung and Shiota, as proposed by the Examiner, does not teach the
limitations of claim 1. As such, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jung, Shiota, and Igarashi teaches
the limitations of claims 4 and 5. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4
and 5.
6
Appeal2017-011529
Application 14/026, 183
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-39 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7