Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2013

11480653 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHANG-HUN LEE, HEE-SEOP KIM,
JUN-WOO LEE, LUJIAN GANG, and
EUN-HEE HAN
____________

Appeal 2011-000908
Application 11/480,653
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-000908
Application 11/480,653

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a liquid crystal display
(LCD) (Spec. 1:10-11).
Independent claim 13, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
13. A liquid crystal display comprising:

first and second electrodes disposed opposite to each
other, and

a liquid crystal layer that is interposed between the first
electrode and the second electrode and forms a bending
alignment,

wherein a normal data voltage representing a luminance
corresponding to external image information, and an impulsive
data voltage that is higher than a lowest voltage that can sustain
the bending alignment are periodically and alternately applied
to the first electrode.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 13-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based upon the teachings of Hong (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0006952
A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Tanaka (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0151710 A1)
and Hong.
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Hong.

Appeal 2011-000908
Application 11/480,653

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1 and 13 together along with the claims
dependent therefrom (App. Br. 5-6). We address the rejection with respect to
claim 13 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants assert the
Examiner is incorrect in finding Hong teaches a normal data voltage that is
periodically and alternately applied to a first electrode (id.).
The Examiner finds Hong teaches a frame (1F) is time divided into
two sequentially driven sub-frames (SF1, SF2) (Fig. 6) (Ans. 13). The
Examiner asserts grayscales A and B are summed (combining sequentially
over multiple frame)s, thus the grayscales A and B are “periodically and
alternately applied” (“grayscales A and B are ‘alternately’ applied by sub-
frame (SF1, SF2) and are ‘periodically’ applied by frame (1F)” (Ans. 13)).
We agree and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Appellants, in their
Reply Brief, have not addressed the Examiner’s findings, but merely repeat
verbatim, the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s underlying
factual findings. Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
representative claim 13 over Hong. As Appellants have argued all the claims
together, we also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejections of claims 12-
16 and 18.
As Appellants have argued all the claims together, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 and 17 based upon obviousness since
Appellants have not identified how Hong or Tanaka remedy the deficiencies
noted above.

Appeal 2011-000908
Application 11/480,653

4

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-16 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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

Vsh