Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201814954859 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/954,859 11/30/2015 9629 7590 08/23/2018 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Junghan Lee 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. 002463 .5172-02 4509 EXAMINER CRAWLEY, KEITH L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): patents@morganlewis.com karen.catalano@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUNGHAN LEE and SUNGCHUL KIM 1 Appeal 2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29. The Examiner indicated claims 6, 9, 15, 18, 24, and 27 contain allowable subject matter (Final Act. 9). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify LG Display Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest (Br. 2). Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "a display device with an integrated touch screen" (Spec. ,r 3). Particularly, Appellants' invention includes a display device with a display panel and a driver circuit for driving the display device by applying a common voltage to the display panel's electrodes, which are divided into a plurality of block type groups, when a driving mode of the panel is in a display driving mode (Abstract). A touch scan signal is then sequentially applied to each block type group when the driving mode of the display panel is in a touch driving mode, and a data signal is applied to the display panel's data lines associated with a corresponding block type group when the touch scan signal is applied to the corresponding block type group (Abstract). Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A driver circuit for driving a display device integrated with a touch screen, the display device comprising a display panel including a plurality of data lines, a plurality of gate lines, and a plurality of electrodes, a plurality of pixels of the display device defined at intersections of the plurality of the data lines and the plurality of gate lines, the driver circuit comprising: a touch circuit to generate a touch scan signal; a display driver circuit configured to: apply a common voltage to the electrodes to display an image on the pixels of the display device; apply the touch scan signal to one or more of the electrodes to determine touch, all of the electrodes of the display panel being driven by the touch scan signal over touch periods; and apply a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to one or more of the data lines corresponding to said one 2 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 or more of the electrodes to which the touch scan signal is applied, the signal having the same phase as the touch scan signal being applied to all of the data lines of the display panel over the touch periods. App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x). REJECTION and REFERENCES The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Shepelev (US 2013/0057511 Al; published Mar. 7, 2013) and van Lieshout (US 2012/0162088 Al; published June 28, 2012). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner's combination of Shepelev and van Lieshout does not teach or suggest "all of the electrodes of the display panel being driven by the touch scan signal over touch periods," and "applying a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to all the data lines of the display panel over the touch periods," as claimed in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 (Br. 4---6 ( emphasis omitted)). Particularly, Appellants argue, "Shepelev does not disclose driving all of the touch electrodes of the display panel with the touch scan signal" during touch periods, and driving the same touch electrodes by a common voltage to display an image, as claimed (Br. 4--5). Rather, "only [Shepelev's] transmitter electrodes 160 are driven by the common voltage" and the touch scan signal ("transmitter signals") and "receiver electrodes 170 of Shepelev are not driven by the common voltage" and the touch scan signal (Br. 4--5). Appellants then argue van Lieshout merely discloses applying V shield (a signal having a same phase as a touch scan signal) "to the storage 3 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 capacitor line, which is not the data line," and "fails to specifically disclose applying V shield to all the data lines" as claimed (Br. 6-7). Appellants further assert one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Shepelev with van Lieshout because the combination (i) "would change [Shepelev's] principle of the display update scheme," (ii) "would change [Shepelev's] touch driving principle," and (iii) "may render the touch mechanism of Shepelev inoperable or change its principle of operation" (Br. 7-13). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Ans. 9-19. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Shepelev teaches "electrodes 160 and electrodes 170 (i.e., 'all of the electrodes of the display panel' as claimed) may act as transmitter electrodes, and thus are 'driven by the touch scan signal [transmitter signal] during one or more touch periods[']" as required by claim 1 (Ans. 10 (citing Shepelev ,r,r 35, 44, 46- 49, Fig. 2)). For example, Shepelev's "mutual capacitance" embodiment senses touch by capacitive coupling between transmitter sensor electrodes ( driven by the touch scan signal) and receiver sensor electrodes, where "[ s ]ensor electrodes ... may be configured to both transmit and receive" (see Shepelev ,r,r 35, 44 (emphasis added)). Particularly, "the first plurality of sensor electrodes [ 160] may be configured to transmit and receive and the second plurality of sensor electrodes [170] may also be configured to transmit and receive" (emphases added) (Shepelev ,r 44, see also ,r,r 58, 67). Shepelev also discloses an "absolute capacitance" embodiment that modulates "all sensor electrodes ... with a touch scan signal for touch sensing without the use of a separate receiver electrode" (Ans. 11-12 (citing Shepelev ,r,r 33-34, Fig. 1)). Thus, Shepelev teaches all of the electrodes 4 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 (sensor electrodes 160 and 170) of the display panel being driven by the touch scan signal over the touch periods, as required by claims 1, 10, and 19 (Ans. 10-11). Appellants' additional argument that "Shepelev does not disclose driving all the electrodes with the touch scan signal during over[ sic] the touch periods, where such touch electrodes are also driven by the common voltage, as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19," is not commensurate with the scope of claims 1, 10, and 19 (Br. 5 ( emphasis added)). As recognized by the Examiner, Appellants' claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite "all of the electrodes driven by the touch scan signal over touch periods must also be driven with the common voltage during the display period," and do not require the "'plurality of electrodes' ... to which a common voltage is applied, to constitute all of the electrodes of the display panel" (Ans. 10- 11 (emphases added)). We agree with the Examiner that Shepelev teaches claim 1 's electrodes because Shepelev applies a common voltage to electrodes (sensor electrodes 160) which function as "dual purpose[]" common electrodes updating display pixels "[ d]uring a display update period" and detecting touch "during a capacitive sensing period" (see Shepelev ,r,r 52, 57). Additionally, Shepelev teaches applying the touch scan signal to one or more of the electrodes (to sensor electrodes 160) to determine touch and driving all of the electrodes (sensor electrodes 160 and 170) of the display panel by the touch scan signal over touch periods, as claimed (see Shepelev ,r,r 35, 44, 57; Final Act. 3). We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Van Lieshout fails to disclose applying a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to all the data lines of the display panel over the touch periods," 5 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 and "merely discloses applying V shield to the storage capacitor line, which is not the data line" (Br. 6-7). Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's findings that van Lieshout "mitigate[s] parasitic currents for all structures in the display that have a large overlap area with the common electrode layer 115 by providing them with the shield signal Vshield [signal having a same phase]," where "structures ... that have a large overlap area with the common electrode layer" include all data lines Sell, Scl2, ... , Scln of the display panel (Ans. 13-14 (citing van Lieshout ,r,r 52, 57, 68, 70, Figs. 2A, 3)). Particularly, the Examiner finds van Lieshout' s "common electrode layer overlaps all data lines Sci" and "[ a ]11 the data lines of Van Lieshout have a large overlap with the common electrode layer" (Ans. 14 (citing van Lieshout ,r,r 51, 70, Fig. 2A)). Therefore, van Lieshout therefore teaches and suggests applying a signal having a same phase to all of the data lines of the display panel, as required by claims 1, 10, and 19 (Ans. 13-14 (citing van Lieshout ,r 68 ("V shield, which has the same amplitude, frequency and phase as the probe voltages Vprobe" is applied to "all structures in the display that have a large overlap area with the common electrode layer"))). We further agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to apply a shield signal to Shepelev's data lines, as taught by van Lieshout, to mitigate parasitic currents between data lines and Shepelev's extensive common electrodes 160 (see Shepelev Fig. 2; see also Shepelev ,r,r 55, 58; Ans. 17). Appellants' argument that a skilled artisan would not have applied a shield signal to Shepelev's data lines because such modification "would change [Shepelev's] principle of the display update scheme" from that of an 6 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 "LCD ... not implemented as the bi-stable or the multi-stable type" to that of an "electrophoretic display [ as in van Lieshout] ... implemented as the bi-stable or the multi-stable type," is unpersuasive (Br. 10). As recognized by the Examiner, "Shepelev is not restricted to an LCD device, nor is van Lieshout restricted to an electrophoretic device" (Ans. 15 (citing Shepelev ,r 42; van Lieshout ,r,r 60-61) ). "[T]he display update scheme of Shepelev is not different from that of Van Lieshout," and shielding Shepelev's data lines (as taught by van Lieshout) does not change Shepelev's display update principle (Ans. 15-16). Appellants' argument that the combination of Shepelev with van Lieshout "would change [Shepelev's] touch driving principle" is also unpersuasive (Br. 11 ). That is, Appellants contend, the "touch driving principle of Shepelev is different from that of Van Lieshout" because "Shepelev only needs to apply one transmitter signal to each of the transmitter electrodes 160, whereas Van Lieshout should apply a plurality of Vprobe signals to the single piece of common electrode" (Br. 11 ( emphases added)). As the Examiner explains, however, "touch sensing of Shepelev and van Lieshout both rely upon providing a stimulating signal to a common electrode layer of a display device to sense touch input" (Ans. 16). For example, both van Lieshout and Shepelev sense touch by applying a voltage to create an electric field in which capacitive coupling changes are detected through changes in current (see Shepelev ,r 32; Van Lieshout ,r,r 6, 64, 67). Additionally, van Lieshout does not require application of "a plurality of Vprobe signals" to the common electrode as Appellants argue; rather, van Lieshout teaches a single Vprobe signal (touch scan signal) may be applied to the common electrode (Br. 11 (emphasis added); see van Lieshout ,r,r 53, 7 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 64 ). Thus, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence showing that shielding Shepelev' s data lines ( as taught by van Lieshout) would change Shepelev's touch driving principle (Ans. 16-17). We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that modifying Shepelev with the shield signal of van Lieshout "renders the touch mechanism of Shepelev inoperable or changes its principle of operation" (Br. 11 ). Appellants contend applying "V shield ... to the conductive structure [e.g., a data line] overlapped with the transmitter electrode 160 to mitigate the parasitic currents from the transmitter electrode 160 to the conductive structure" "may deteriorate [Shepelev's] touch sensing ability" (Br. 12-13). That is, Shepelev's receiver electrode 170 also overlaps with the conductive structure and therefore "may also be affected by the shield signal Vshield'' (emphases added) (id.). Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Shepelev's pattern of sensor electrodes "is not restricted to the mutual capacitance embodiment utilizing [ overlapping] X and Y electrodes" and Appellants have provided insufficient evidence that shielding Shepelev's data lines would "preclude determination of touch input position based on capacitive coupling between transmitter [160] and receiver [170] electrodes" (Ans. 19). Appellants have not established that shielding Shepelev's data lines would render Shepelev's touch mechanism inoperable or change its principle of operation (Ans. 19). We are therefore unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's combination of Shepelev and van Lieshout. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent 8 Appeal2018-000625 Application 14/954,859 claims 1, 10, and 19, and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 11-14, 16, 17, 20-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 for which no separate arguments are provided (Br. 13). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation