Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

15093672 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/093,672 04/07/2016
9629 7590 08/23/2018
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JunghanLEE
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.
002463-5172-03 1074
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
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, 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, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-32.
The Examiner indicated claims 6, 9, 15, 18, 24, and 27 contain allowable
subject matter. Final Act. 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 Appellants identify LG Display Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest (Br.
2).
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed June 8, 2017;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed August 21, 2017; Final Office Action
("Final Act.") mailed December 16, 2016; and original Specification
("Spec."), filed April 7, 2016.
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
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 touch 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:
circuitry configured to:
apply a common voltage to the touch electrodes to
display an image on the display device;
apply a touch scan signal to one or more of the touch
electrodes, all of the touch electrodes of the display panel
being driven by the touch scan signal during one or more
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 or more of the touch electrodes to which the touch
scan signal is applied.
2
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
Br. 16-21 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION and REFERENCES
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Shepelev et
al. (US 2013/0057511 Al; published Mar. 7, 2013; "Shepelev") and van
Lieshout et al. (US 2012/0162088 Al; published June 28, 2012; "van
Lieshout"). Final Act. 3-10.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17,
19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, and 32
Appellants contend the Examiner's combination of Shepelev and van
Lieshout does not teach or suggest "all of the touch electrodes of the display
panel being driven by the touch scan signal during one or more touch
periods," and "apply[ing] a signal having a same phase as the touch scan
signal to one or more of the data lines corresponding to said one or more of
the touch electrodes to which the touch scan signal is applied," as claimed in
independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Br. 4--7. Particularly, Appellants argue,
"Shepelev does not disclose driving all of the touch electrodes of the display
panel with the touch scan signal" during one or more 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.
3
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
Appellants then argue van Lieshout merely discloses applying V shield
(a signal having a same phase as a touch scan signal) "to the storage
capacitor line, which is not the data line," and "fails to specifically disclose
applying V shield to the data line" 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. 7-12. We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Ans.
11-24. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Shepelev teaches
"electrodes 160 and electrodes 170 (i.e., 'all of the touch 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. 11-12 (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." Shepelev ,r 44 ( emphases added), 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."
4
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
Ans. 13 ( citing Shepelev ,r,r 33-34, Fig. 1 ). Thus, Shepelev teaches all of
the touch electrodes (sensor electrodes 160 and 170) of the display panel
being driven by the touch scan signal during one or more touch periods, as
required by claims 1, 10, and 19. Ans. 11-12.
Appellants' additional argument that "Shepelev does not disclose
driving all the touch electrodes with the touch scan signal during the one or
more touch scan periods, where such touch electrodes are also driven by the
common voltage during the display period, 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 touch electrodes driven by the touch scan
signal during the touch periods must also be driven with the common voltage
during the display period," and do not require the "'plurality of touch
electrodes' [] to which a common voltage is applied, to constitute all of
the touch electrodes of the display panel." Ans. 12 (emphases added).
We agree with the Examiner that Shepelev teaches claim 1 's touch
electrodes because Shepelev applies a common voltage to touch 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 touch electrodes (to sensor electrodes 160) for determining
touch, and driving all of the touch electrodes (sensor electrodes 160 and
170) of the display panel by the touch scan signal during one or more touch
periods, as claimed. See Shepelev ,r,r 35, 44, 57; Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-13.
5
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
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 any data line corresponding to one or more of the touch
electrodes to which the touch scan signal is applied," and "merely discloses
applying Vshield to the storage capacitor line, which is not the data line."
Br. 6. Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's findings that
van Lieshout "mitigate[ s] parasitic currents for all structures in the display
panel that have a large overlap area with the common electrode layer
115 by providing them with the shield signal V shield [ signal having a same
phase]," where "structures ... that have a large overlap area with the
common electrode layer" include the data lines Sell, Scl2, ... , Scln of the
display panel. Ans. 15-16 ( 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 "[t]he data lines of van Lieshout have
a large overlap with the common electrode layer." Ans. 15-16 ( citing van
Lieshout ,r,r 51, 70, Fig. 2A).
Further, we agree van Lieshout teaches and suggests applying a signal
having a same phase as the touch scan signal to one or more of the data lines
corresponding to a touch electrode to which the touch scan signal is applied,
as required by claims 1, 10, and 19. Ans. 14--16 ( 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 also 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 for
mitigating parasitic currents between Shepelev's extensive common
6
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
electrodes 160 and the data lines ("display lines") corresponding to those
common electrodes. See Shepelev Fig. 2; see also Shepelev ,r,r 55, 58
(describing the "display lines"); Ans. 14, 18-19.
Appellants' argument that a skilled artisan would not have applied a
shield signal to Shepelev's data line(s) because such modification "would
change [Shepelev's] principle of the display update scheme" from that of an
"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. 9. As recognized by
the Examiner, "Shepelev is not restricted to an LCD device, nor is Van
Lieshout restricted to an electrophoretic device." Ans. 17 ( 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. 17.
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. 10-11
( 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.
18. For example, both van Lieshout and Shepelev sense touch by applying a
7
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
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 o/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. 10-11 (emphasis added); see van
Lieshout ,r,r 53, 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. 18-19.
We are also not persuaded 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. 11-12. That is, Shepelev's receiver electrode 170 also overlaps with the
conductive structure and therefore "may also be affected by the shield signal
Vshield." Id. (emphases added). Appellants' argument is not persuasive
because 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. 20-21.
8
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
Appellants have not established that shielding Shepelev's data lines
would render Shepelev's touch mechanism inoperable or change its principle
of operation. Ans. 20-21. We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's combination of Shepelev with 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, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, and 19, and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 11-14, 16,
17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, and 32 for which no separate arguments are provided.
Br. 12.
Claims 28-30
Claim 2 8 depends from claim 1, and further recites "wherein the
signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal is applied to all of the
data lines corresponding to said one or more of the touch electrodes to which
the touch scan signal is applied." Br. 20 (Claims App'x). Claim 29 depends
from claim 1, and further recites "wherein the signal having a same phase as
the touch scan signal is applied to a plurality of said data lines corresponding
to a plurality of said touch electrodes to which the touch scan signal is
applied." Br. 21 (Claims App'x). Claim 30 depends from claim 1, and
further recites "wherein the signal having a same phase as the touch scan
signal is applied to all of said data lines corresponding to a plurality of said
touch electrodes to which the touch scan signal is applied." Br. 21 (Claims
App'x).
Appellants argue Shepelev and van Lieshout fail to disclose "applying
the signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to a plurality of the
9
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
data lines" (as in claim 29) or "to all of the data lines" (as in claims 28 and
30) corresponding to "said one or more of the touch electrodes" (as in claim
28) or to "a plurality of said touch electrodes to which the touch scan signal
is applied" (as in claims 29 and 30). Br. 13-14. Particularly, Appellants
argue Shepelev and van Lieshout fail to disclose applying a "signal having a
same phase as the touch scan signal to all of the data lines" as recited in
claims 28 and 30. Br. 13-14. Appellants also argue "Van Lieshout does not
disclose applying the signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to
a plurality of touch electrodes" as recited in claims 29 and 30. Br. 13-14.
Rather, van Lieshout merely discloses a surface capacitive touch mechanism
using "the four comers of a single piece of common electrode layer in
response to the Vprobe signal in order to determine the touch location." Id.
Initially, we note claims 29 and 30 require applying the signal having
a same phase to data lines, not to touch electrodes as Appellants argue. Ans.
23-24; see Br. 14 (arguing "Van Lieshout does not disclose applying the
signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to a plurality of touch
electrodes").
Secondly, with respect to Appellants' argument that van Lieshout
does not teach "a plurality of touch electrodes" as in claims 29 and 30
(rather, only disclosing one touch electrode as "a single piece of common
electrode layer," see Br. 13-14), we note Appellants' arguments attack the
references separately rather than the combination of teachings proposed by
the Examiner. Ans. 22-23. Shepelev's sensor electrodes 160 (not van
Lieshout's common electrode layer, as Appellants assert) were cited for
teaching the claimed "plurality of said touch electrodes to which the touch
scan signal is applied" and to which "a common voltage" is applied. Ans.
10
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
11, 13, 22; Final Act. 3--4. As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we
agree with the Examiner that Shepelev teaches applying a touch scan signal
to a plurality of touch electrodes (sensor electrodes 160) and applying a
common voltage to these same touch 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, van Lieshout discloses data lines Sell, Sc12, ... , Scln
corresponding to a touch electrode ( common electrode layer 115), and
Shepelev discloses data lines ("display lines") corresponding to touch
electrodes ( sensor electrodes 160 that function as common electrodes to
update display lines). Ans. 15-16 (citing van Lieshout ,r,r 51, 68, 70-71,
Figs. 2A, 3); Shepelev ,r,r 55-58, Abstract. As the Examiner further finds,
van Lieshout "mitigate[ s] parasitic currents for all structures in the display
panel that have a large overlap area with the common electrode layer
115 by providing them with the shield signal V shield [ 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. 15-16 ( citing van Lieshout ,r,r 52, 57, 68, 70, Figs. 2A,
3); see 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").
Van Lieshout therefore teaches and suggests applying a signal
(Vshield) having a same phase to all data lines (as in claims 28 and 30) and
to a plurality of data lines (as in claim 29) corresponding to a touch
11
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
electrode (van Lieshout's common electrode layer). Ans. 15-16, 22-23.
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 Shepelev's
extensive common electrodes 160 and the data lines corresponding to those
electrodes 160. See Shepelev Fig. 2; see also Shepelev ,r,r 55, 58; Ans. 18-
19, 22.
The combination of Shepelev and van Lieshout therefore teaches
applying a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal (i) "to all of
the data lines corresponding to said one or more of the touch electrodes to
which the touch scan signal is applied" (as recited in claim 28), (ii) "to a
plurality of said data lines corresponding to a plurality of said touch
electrodes to which the touch scan signal is applied" (as recited in claim 29),
and (iii) "to all of said data lines corresponding to a plurality of said touch
electrodes to which the touch scan signal is applied" (as recited in claim 30).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claims 28-30. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 28-30.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16,
17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims
12
Appeal 2018-000628
Application 15/093,672
1-5, 7,8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19,22,23,25,26,and28-32.
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