11171699 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 30, 2012

11171699 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2012)

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. 11/171,699 06/30/2005 Kyung Man Kim 10125-4192 7953 757 7590 04/30/2012 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER KIM, CRAIG SANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte KYUNG MAN KIM ____________ Appeal 2010-008738 Application 11/171,699 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 15, 17-20, 22, 24-26, and 28. Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 21, 23, and 27 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 An Oral Hearing for this appeal was held on April 10, 2012. Appeal 2010-008738 Application 11/171,699 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to an organic electro-luminescent display device (see Spec. ¶ [0016]). Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows. 1. An organic electro-luminescent display device comprising: a plurality of pixels, the pixel having an electro- luminescent element that emits light according to an amount of current supplied thereto; a first switching element that switches a data voltage from a data line in response to a scan signal from a gate line; a second switching element that adjusts the amount of current supplied to the electro-luminescent element according to the data voltage switched by the first switching element; and a polarity controller that applies a voltage having a value between a minimum value and a maximum value of the data voltage to a source terminal of the second switching element that varies a polarity of a gate-source voltage of the second switching element according to the data voltage applied to a gate terminal of the second switching element, wherein the voltage from the polarity controller is a direct current (DC) voltage which has the same level as that of a data voltage corresponding to a gray scale having a highest level in a gray scale zone that is less than 30% of an entire gray scale zone predefined according to data voltages. Rejections Claims 1, 5, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Libsch (US 2003/0107565 A1). Appeal 2010-008738 Application 11/171,699 3 Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Libsch, Chi (US 6,204,574 B1), and Sasaki (US 6,617,796 B2). Claims 7, 10, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Libsch, Routley (US 2006/0038758 A1), Kasai (US 6,750,833), and Mikami (US 2002/0140659 A1). Claims 15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kasai (7,202,842 B2), Mikami, and Libsch. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Libsch, Eu (US 2002/0080133 A1), and Chen (US 7,317,433 B2). Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kasai (7,202,842 B2) and Libsch. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the claimed feature “voltage from the polarity controller is a direct current (DC) voltage which has the same level as that of a data voltage corresponding to a gray scale having a highest level in a gray scale zone that is less than 30% of an entire gray scale zone predefined according to data voltages” is disclosed in Figures 5A and 5B and the corresponding description in Libsch (Ans. 21-23). The Examiner specifically explains that: Libsch further discloses “a gray scale zone that is less than thirty percent of the entire gray scale zone” in figures 5A-5B, because the voltage from the polarity controller, at -5 volts, provides a ceiling for a range or zone of data voltage from -5 to -7 volts, which is a zone that is less than thirty percent of the entire gray scale zone. Because the -5 volt voltage from the Appeal 2010-008738 Application 11/171,699 4 polarity controller is charged in capacitor CS1, the voltage directly influences the data voltage V2 and provides the ceiling for a gray scale zone in the display. Both zones are disclosed in Libsch on the y-axis of the graph in figures 5A and 5B, and one of ordinary skill would see that in taking figures 5A and 5G with figure 5B of Libsch that a zone that is less than 30 percent of the entire range of values is -5 to -7 volts. (Ans. 22). Appellant contends that Libsch does not describe any relationship between the voltage and a gray scale zone, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2-3). With respect to the voltage levels shown in Figure 5B, Appellant asserts that Libsch provides no indication that the values shown in Figure 5B correspond to any gray scale values or to voltage variations over time representing the entire range of any gray scale (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellant’s contentions above that Libsch does not disclose any relationship between the voltage level and a gray scale, nor discusses the full range of a gray scale, let alone that the values shown in Figures 5A-5B represent the outer limits of the scale. The Examiner has not responded to Appellant’s discussion challenging how the voltage range disclosed in Libsch may constitute a zone that is less than 30% of an entire gray scale zone. In other words, while Libsch shows a plot of the variations of the voltage in response to a data input (see ¶ [0077]), the Examiner has not pointed to, nor do we find, any teachings in Libsch discussing the polarity controller providing a direct voltage which “has the same level as that of a data voltage corresponding to a gray scale having a highest level in a gray scale zone that is less than 30% of an entire gray scale zone,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2010-008738 Application 11/171,699 5 CONCLUSION On the record before us, because Libsch does not disclose the disputed limitation, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as well as the other independent claims which recite a similar limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, which rely on Libsch for disclosing the above-discussed limitation. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 15, 17-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 is reversed. REVERSED msc