Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13283409 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
13/283,409 10/27/2011 Seong-Jun Lee 68335/S1437 3274
23363 7590 03/02/2017
T ewis; Rnra Rnthcrerher Phrisitie T T P
EXAMINER
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
LIN, HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph @ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEONG-JUN LEE, JIN-OH PARK, MU-KYUNG JANG,
YONG-KYU JANG, DONG-HOON LEE, and CHI-WOO KIM
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 53—67 and 69-73. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 53 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
53. A display substrate comprising:
an insulating substrate including a first pixel region and a
second pixel region located in a first direction from the first pixel
region;
a first gate line extending in a second direction crossing
the first direction on the insulating substrate;
a first data line crossing the first gate line;
a first lower electrode in the first pixel region;
a second lower electrode in the second pixel region;
a first upper electrode overlapping the first lower electrode
in the first pixel region and comprising a first slit pattern
comprising a plurality offirst slits extending in a third direction
different from the first and the second directions, both ends of
each of the first slits having different shapes from each other,
and wherein a first slit among the first slits that is parallel to
the first data line is shorter than a second slit among the first
slits that is parallel to the first data line, with the both ends of
the first slit among the first slits having a same shape as the
both ends of the second slit among the first slits, respectively,
and
a second upper electrode overlapping the second lower
electrode in the second pixel region and comprising a second slit
pattern comprising a plurality of second slits extending in a
fourth direction different from the first to the third directions,
both ends of each of the second slits having different shapes from
each other, and the shapes of the both ends of each of the second
slits being symmetric to the shapes of the both ends of each of
the first slits.
2
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 53—61, 64, 71, and 73 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamada
(US 2009/0115946 Al; May 7, 2009), Liao (US 2008/0068549 Al; Mar. 20,
2008), Chen (US 2010/0207853 Al; Aug. 19, 2010), and Fujita
(US 2007/0229748 Al; Oct. 4, 2007).1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yamada, Liao, Chen, Fujita, and Jeon
(US 2008/0191980 Al; Aug. 14, 2008).
3. The Examiner rejected claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yamada, Liao, Chen, Fujita, and Park
(US 2004/0263748 Al; Dec. 30, 2004).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 65 and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamada, Liao, Chen, Fujita,
and Lin (US 2006/0284819 Al; Dec. 21, 2006).
1 The patentability of claims 54—66 is not separately argued from that of
claim 53. See App. Br. 20. Regarding claims 71 and 73, Appellants’
arguments for patentability of these claims are virtually identical to
Appellants’ argument for patentability of claim 53, with one exception:
Appellants argue the Final Office Action appears to apply the same rejection
of claim 53 to claims 71 and 73 despite variations in claim scope. See App.
Br. 26—31 and 37-42. We disagree, as the Examiner merely referred to the
previous analysis of claim 53 for claim limitations of claims 71 and 73 that
are also present in claim 53 and added additional citations for claim
limitations of claims 71 and 73 that are not present in claim 53. See Final
Act. 14—15; see also Ans. 15—17. Thus, except for our ultimate decision,
claims 54—66, 71, and 73 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
5. The Examiner rejected claims 67, 69, 70, and 72 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamada,
Liao, Nakayoshi (US 6,897,930 B2; May 24, 2005), and Fujita.2
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[A]s shown in FIG. 9 of Liao . . . the ends of each of the so-
called “slits” between the electrodes 113b appear to have the
same shape with respect to each other[\ Additionally, the “slits”
are not parallel to a data line, but instead appear to extend at
an acute angle relative to the gate lines 103 as well as the scan
lines 107. Furthermore, all of the “slits” appear to have the
same length as each other, rather than a first slit being shorter
than a second slit.
.. . [A]s shown in FIGS. 12 and 13 of Chen . . . there is no
indication that the spaces between the extensions 162 extend in
a third direction different from the first and second direction
(e.g., the X and Y directions), and indeed, Chen appears to be
entirely silent regarding this physical structure, as recited in
claim 53. Additionally, each of the spaces between the
2 The patentability of claims 69 and 70 is not separately argued from that of
claim 67. See App. Br. 26. Regarding claim 72, Appellants’ argument for
patentability of this claim is virtually identical to Appellants’ argument for
patentability of claim 67, with one exception: Appellants argue the Final
Office Action appears to apply the same rejection of claim 67 to claim 72
despite variations in claim scope. See App. Br. 32—37. We disagree, as the
Examiner merely referred to the previous analysis of claim 67 for claim
limitations of claim 72 that are also present in claim 67 and added additional
citations for claim limitations of claim 72 that are not present in claim 67.
See Final Act. 26; see also Ans. 16. Thus, except for our ultimate decision,
claims 69, 70, and 72 are not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
extensions 162 in FIGS. 12 and 13 appear to be open near the
angled regions 178, and therefore the so-called “slits” (or open
spaces between the extensions 162) do not appear to have two
“ends” within the plain meaning of the term “end,” especially
when read in light of the originally-filed specification. After all,
the open area between the angled regions 178 does not actually
“end, ” in the sense that the open area never ends because it is
open. Furthermore, Chen appears to be entirely silent regarding
the open spaces between the extensions 162 having different
lengths.
. . . [A]s shown in FIG. 8A of Fujita . . . the ends of each
of the slits lOx appear to have the same shape, as opposed to
both ends of each of the slits lOx having different shapes from
each other. Additionally, the slits lOx do not appear to extend
parallel to either the source lines 32 or the gate lines 33.
. . . [T]he rejection of claim 53 appears to hinge entirely
on the use of impermissible hindsight bias, in which
Appellants’ own structure is used as a road map or instruction
manual to piece together various aspects of the claimed
structure, in piecemeal fashion, while ignoring the context of
the entire claim as a whole.
App. Br. 15—20 (Appellants’ citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added).
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
In addition to ignoring aspects of the claimed structure and
shape of the slit pattern in order to twist together a piecemeal
rejection of the claimed structure, the Examiner's Answer and
the Final Rejection fail to articulate a sufficient rationale for
modifying the cited references that would support aprima facie
case of obviousness....
5
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
For example, with respect to Liao, the Examiner's Answer
merely states that “it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify
Yamada with Liao ... in order to improve the brightness, color
and viewing angles of the display.” . . . The Final Rejection
makes similar conclusory assertions with respect to Chen. . . .
Such a conclusory assertion, however, is insufficient to support
a prima facie case of obviousness, because the Final Rejection
fails to cite any evidence, in Liao, Yamada, or otherwise, to
show that modifying the disclosure of Yamada with aspects of
the disclosure of Liao would “improve the brightness, color and
viewing angles of the display. ” In fact, there is no evidence one
way or the other that modifying the disclosure of Yamada
would result in improved brightness, color, or viewing angles,
and whatever modifications that would be made to the
disclosure of Yamada may actually lead to undesirable results.
There is simply no evidence one way or the other.
Furthermore, in the case of Fujita, the Examiner's Answer
and the Final Rejection fail to articulate any rationale at all that
would support a prima facie case of obviousness. Rather, the
Examiner's Answer and the Final Rejection merely describe
structural changes that would need to be made to Yamada and
Fujita in order for the claims to read on the Examiner’s imagined
mishmash of features, stating “it would have been obvious to one
with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to
modify Yamada, Liao and Chen with Fujita ... so there is a
substituted method to arrange the slits which in this case instead
of located the contact to the pixel electrode to be outside the pixel
electrode area, the contact is located inside the pixel electrode
area.” . . . Merely describing contortions to the disclosures of
the cited references that would be necessary is not sufficient to
support a prima facie case of obviousness, absent some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Reply Br. 6—7 (Appellants’ citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellants respectfully traverse the assertion that Liao, including
FIG. 9, discloses or even suggests the features recited in claim
54. For example, the ends of the spaces between the pixel
electrodes 113b in [Liao] do not appear to have a “curved
shape, ” consistent with the ordinary dictionary definition of the
term “curved, ” especially when read in light of the originally-
filed Specification.
App. Br. 20 (emphasis added).
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 53 (see App. Br. 22, 24—26), and further because:
[T]he pixel electrode PX of Nakayoshi appears to lack any slit
pattern within the plain meaning of the term, and especially
when read in light of the originally-filed Specification. For
example, as [Nakayoshi] explains with respect to FIG. 3 A (which
appears to have a similar structure as FIG. 4 A) of Nakayoshi. . .
that “the pixel electrode PX is structured from a single electrode
which extends in the y direction at a central portion of the pixel
region.” Thus, each of the pixel regions appear to merely
include a single pixel electrode PX, and each of the pixel
electrodes PX appear to lack any slit pattern.
App. Br. 23 (Appellants’ citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 53, 54, and 67 as being
obvious?
7
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which
the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—30); and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—18) in response to the
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Regarding Appellants’ individual arguments against the
cited references, we agree with the Examiner that one cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based
on a combination of references. See, e.g., Ans. 3; see also In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981)).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that the Examiner failed to provide a
rationale for combining the cited references, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
of the claimed invention, to modify a shape of a slit structure contained
within a pixel electrode to improve features of a display, such as brightness,
color, and viewing angle, as it was known in the art that modifying the shape
of the slit structure could yield such improvements. See, e.g., Ans. 6; see
also Fujita 112 (stating that a slit structure in a pixel electrode affects
brightness of the liquid crystal device). Further, “[wjhen a patent claims a
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
8
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50—51
(1966). We conclude the Examiner’s modification of Yamada’s slit
structure is merely a substitution of one element (i.e., slits having same­
shaped ends and having a same length) for another known in the field (i.e.,
slits having different-shaped ends and having different lengths), yielding
nothing more than predictable results.3 Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellants have not provided a definition of “curved,”
either in Appellants’ disclosure or in Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs,
that distinguishes claim 54 from Liao’s curved slit structure, as taught, for
example, by Figure 9 of Liao, reproduced below:
3 We do not take a position on the Examiner’s finding that a changing the
shape and pattern of slits would have merely been a design choice for one of
ordinary skill in the art, as it is not necessary to reach this finding in order to
affirm the rejection. See, e.g., Ans. 11.
9
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
ion
iOib
FIG. 9
The reproduced figure of Liao above depicts electrode structures in pixel
areas of a liquid crystal device, and clearly shows curved slits in between
parallel electrodes 113b. See Liao at Fig. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As to Appellants’ above contention 4, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Many of Appellants’ arguments associated with
Appellants’ above contention 4 are identical to Appellants’ arguments
10
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
associated with Appellants’ above contention 1, and are not persuasive for
the reasons discussed above. With respect to Appellants’ argument
regarding Nakayoshi, we agree with the Examiner that Nakayoshi teaches a
pixel electrode extending in two different directions from a central portion of
the pixel electrode (see Final Act. 24), as shown in Figure 4A of Nakayoshi,
reproduced below:
11
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
The reproduced figure of Nakayoshi above depicts a liquid crystal
display device that includes a pixel electrode (i.e., pixel electrode PX). See
Nakayoshi at Fig. 4A. We further agree with the Examiner that, by
modifying Yamada’s pixel electrode structure to adopt the shape of
Nakayoshi’s pixel electrode structure, a shape of Yamada’s slit structure
would also be modified to adopt the shape of the modified pixel electrode
structure. See Final Act. 24—25.4 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 53—67 and 69—73
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 53—67 and 69-73 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 53—67 and 69—73 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4 Although not necessary to affirm the rejection, we note that Figure 4A of
Nakayoshi depicts an opening between the pixel electrode and a counter
electrode (i.e., counter electrode CT) where the opening extends in two
different directions. See Nakayoshi at Fig. 4A. Thus, we find Nakayoshi’s
depiction of the aforementioned opening teaches or suggests a slit
“sequentially extending in a third direction and in a fourth direction, the
third and the fourth directions being different from each other, each of the
third and the fourth directions being different from the first and the second
directions,” as recited in claim 67.
12
Appeal 2016-005527
Application 13/283,409
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
13