Ex Parte Jo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13753334 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/753,334 01/29/2013 Hyeon-Ja Jo SDCSHN.239AUS 1065
20995 7590 10/02/2017
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
BOGALE, AMEN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYEON-JA JO
Appeal 2016-008525
Application 13/753,3341
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Samsung Display Co., Ltd., is identified as the real party in interest. See
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008525
Application 13/753,334
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “a flat panel display device, and more
particularly, to a layout of a driving circuit used in a flat panel display
device.” Spec. 12. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A driving circuit to output a data signal for a display
device, the driving circuit comprising:
a first region including a first transistor;
a second region including a second transistor;
a third region including a third transistor; and
a fourth region including a fourth transistor,
wherein the first transistor is different type from the
second transistor, the third transistor is different type from the
fourth transistor, the second region is located between the first
region and the third region,
a width of the first region and a width of the second region
are greater than a width of the third region, and the width of the
first region and the width of the second region are greater than
a width of the fourth region.
Examiner s Reference and Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in
view of Tsuchi (US 2012/0127138 Al; May 24, 2012). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012); cf Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred; we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see
2
Appeal 2016-008525
Application 13/753,334
Final Act. 4—18; Ans. 18—22) as our own, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
because “Tsuchi does not disclose that the first and second regions are wider
than the third and fourth regions,” as claimed. App. Br. 5 (emphasis
removed). Appellant contends that, in contrast with the claim, Tsuchi
discloses the “first region and the second region each have two rows of two
devices (‘2x2’), while the third and fourth regions each have one row of two
devices (‘1x2’),” such that Tsuchi’s “first and second regions each have a
width of two devices” and, similarly, Tsuchi’s “third and fourth regions each
have a width of two devices.” Id. 7.
During prosecution, we give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds “Applicant’s claim,
as presented, does not preclude the width of the first region and the width of
the second region to have a width of two devices and the width of the third
device [region] and the width of the fourth device [region] to have a width of
one device.”2 Ans. 20-21. We agree, as the claim, read in light of the
Specification, does not specify which side of each claimed region constitutes
the “width,” nor does the claim stipulate how such width is measured. See
2 We note Appellant does not appear to challenge the Examiner’s
construction. See Reply Br. 4—5 (“Appellant respectfully submits the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification requires
the width of the first region and the width of the second region to have a
width of two devices and the width of the third device and the width of the
fourth device to have a width of one device.”); compare Reply Br. 3^4
(quoting the Examiner’s construction).
3
Appeal 2016-008525
Application 13/753,334
Reply Br. 4. For instance, Appellant’s application provides examples, but
no limiting definitions of the “width” and “length” of each region. See, e.g.,
Fig 2; Spec. H 19, 23-24.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
“Tsuchi teaches the width of the first region and the width of the second
region ... is equal to two MOS devices while the width of the third region
and the width of the fourth region is equal to one MOS device.” Ans. 21
(citing Tsuchi Fig. 1). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Tsuchi
teaches the claim limitation “a width of the first region and a width of the
second region are greater than a width of the third region, and the width of
the first region and the width of the second region are greater than a width of
the fourth region.” Id.
As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1,
and claims 2—20 not separately argued. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4