Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2014

11355008 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

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.
11/355,008 02/16/2006 Chih Chiang Lu LUCH3016/BEU 8760
23364 7590 03/28/2014
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
CERULLO, LILIANA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHIH CHIANG LU, CHUNG YI CHANG,
TAI ANN CHEN, CHI CHANG LIAO, and WEI TING HSU
____________________

Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added,
reads as follows:
1. A gray-scale driving method for an active matrix bi-
stable chiral nematic liquid crystal display, dividing an updated
picture into a first-section frame, a second-section frame and a
third-section frame, said first, second, and third-section frames
being sequentially driven, said active matrix bistable chiral
nematic liquid crystal display including a bi-stable chiral
nematic liquid crystal, a plurality of pixels each having a switch
and a capacitor, a plurality of signal lines arranged to supply
data signals from a signal line driver to said pixels through
respective said switches, and a plurality of scan lines arranged
to control said switches in response to scanning signals supplied
by a scan line driver, said method comprising the steps of:
driving said first-section frame before starting the driving
of the said second-section frame by respectively controlling
said signal line driver and said scan line driver to drive said bi-
stable chiral nematic liquid crystal into a predetermined initial
state;
driving said second-section frame after completing
scanning of the entire said first-section frame and before
starting driving of said third-section frame by controlling said
signal line driver to supply updated gray-scale frame data to the
pixels through said switches in response to line-by-line
scanning control of said switches by said scan line driver; and
respectively controlling said signal line driver and said
scan line driver to drive said third-section frame to zero voltage
for the pixels after completing scanning of the entire said
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

3
second-section frame such that the bi-stable chiral nematic
liquid crystal relaxes to stable states corresponding to the write-
in gray-scale data.
Examiner’s Rejection1
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 7-15 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fujiwara (U.S. 6,052,103;
issued Apr. 18, 2000) and Konno (U.S. 2003/0080932 A1; published May 1,
2003). Ans. 4-11.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4-6 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fujiwara, Konno, and Blackson
(U.S. 2002/0109661 A1; published August 15, 2002). Ans. 12-13.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
13-15 of the Answer, including the new citation to paragraph [0075] of
Konno (Ans. 15), regarding the second holding period pointed out by the
Examiner as being equivalent to the third sub-frame in representative claim
1 (see Ans. 5-7, 14-15).

1 Appellants argue patentability for claims 1-3 and 7-15 as a group and not
individually (see Br. 5-9). Appellants also argue patentability for claims 4-6
as a group and not individually (see Br. 10). Claims 1, 14, and 15 are
independent claims. We consider claim 1 to be representative of the group
of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fujiwara and Konno
(claims 1-3 and 7-15) and claim 4 to be representative of the group of claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fujiwara, Konno, and Blackson
(claims 4-6). Accordingly, our analysis herein will only address
representative claims 1 and 4.
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

4
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5-10) the
following issues are presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-15 as being
obvious because the combination of Fujiwara and Konno fails to teach or
suggest the method for driving an LCD recited in representative claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 4-6 as being obvious
because the combination of Fujiwara, Konno, and Blackson fails to teach or
suggest the method for driving an LCD including driving a first-section
frame to a focal conic state, as recited in representative claim 4?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-10) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. With regard to representative
claim 1, we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-13), and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 13-15). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants’ arguments as follows.
Claims 1-3 and 7-15
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (One
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

5
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on a combination of references. (citation omitted)).
Appellants make arguments with regard to claims 1-3 and 7-15 (Br. 5-
9) concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of each of the
applied references to Fujiwara and Konno. These arguments, however, are
not convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in
claims 1-3 and 7-15.
For example, Appellants criticize Fujiwara for not disclosing a sub-
frame-by-sub-frame and one scan line-by-one scan line driving scheme as
recited (Br. 5-6), when the Examiner has relied upon the combination of
Fujiwara and Konno (and specifically Konno) to teach or suggest this feature
(Ans. 5-7).
Further, the Examiner relies upon Figure 1 of Konno as to the
sequential driving scheme including first, second, and third-section frames
(the Examiner points to Konno’s preset period, first and second writing
periods, and second holding period, respectively, as teaching or suggesting
the recited section frames). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7, 14-15)
that the third-section frame recited in claim 1 corresponds to Konno’s
second holding period.
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6, 9) that Konno’s scheme is not
sequential, and is instead staggered, are not persuasive in light of Konno’s
repeated disclosure of the process being sequential in nature (see Konno,
claim 2 (the “wherein . . . ” clause reciting “driven in this sequence”); claim
61 (“driven in this sequence”)), as well as Konno’s disclosures of (i)
dividing a frame into plural periods (see Konno, claims 23, 61), and (ii)
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

6
performing operations frame by frame (see Konno, claim 18 (“scanning of a
next frame”)).
We agree with the new and reasonable findings regarding the
disclosure of Konno (Ans. 15 (citing Konno, ¶ [0075])) regarding the second
holding period (as being equivalent to the recited third-section frame and
performing the action of simultaneously driving the whole of the third-
section frame) and find no rebuttal or contrary evidence presented on the
record before us by Appellants.
Appellants’ contention (Br. 8-9) that the claimed invention applies
voltage to a pixel of a scan line to cause one phase change, instead of three
phase changes as done in Fujiwara, is unpersuasive inasmuch this argument
is not commensurate in scope with the actual language of representative
claim 1 on appeal (which does not recite or require a specific number of
phase changes per se).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s articulation of the motivation
for making the combination (Ans. 6-7; Konno, ¶¶ [0007], [0017], [0020],
[0021]), including “in order to obtain the benefit of intermittent lighting of
the illumination (e.g. backlight per Konno para. 7) which requires display
only after the whole image is written during scanning (Konno, para. 7, 20-
21)” (Ans. 6).
In view of the foregoing, Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief
(Br. 5-9) are not persuasive, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well
as claims 2, 3, and 7-15 grouped therewith, under § 103(a) over Fujiwara
and Konno for the reasons provided by the Examiner (see, e.g., Ans. 4-7, 13-
15 (discussing claim 1)).
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

7
Claims 4-6
With regard to claims 4-6, Appellants argue (Br. 10) that (i) Blackson
fails to cure the deficiencies of Fujiwara and Konno, and (ii) Blackson’s
passive matrix driving method is fundamentally different than the active
driving method of claims 4-6. These arguments are not persuasive in light
of (i) our agreement with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding
Fujiwara and Konno, (ii) the fact that Blackson discloses driving the first-
section frame of an LCD to a focal conic state (Blackson, ¶ [0029]; Ans. 12,
15), and (iii) the Examiner’s reliance upon the base combination of Fujiwara
and Konno as teaching or suggesting an active LCD driving method.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in determining that the combination of
Fujiwara and Konno teaches or suggests the method for driving an LCD as
recited in representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 7-15 grouped
therewith.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in determining that the combination of
Fujiwara, Konno, and Blackson teaches or suggests the method for driving
an LCD including driving a first-section frame to a focal conic state as
recited in representative claim 4, and claims 5 and 6 grouped therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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).
Appeal 2011-011576
Application 11/355,008

8

AFFIRMED

bab