Ex Parte Luo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2011

11163725 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FANG-CHEN LUO
_____________

Appeal 2009-011233
Application 11/163,725
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011233
Application 11/163,725

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellant’s Figure 5 is depicted below:

Appellant’s Figure 5 and claimed invention are directed to a thin-film
transistor array substrate 400 of a transreflective liquid crystal display
having a transparent sub-pixel 404’ and a reflective sub-pixel 404”. The
transparent sub-pixels 404’ define a transparent region T, while the
Appeal 2009-011233
Application 11/163,725

3
reflective sub-pixels 404” define a reflective region R. The transparent sub-
pixel 404’ comprises a transparent pixel electrode 408 and a first thin-film
transistor 402a, and the reflective sub-pixel 404” comprises a reflective pixel
electrode 406 and a second thin-film transistor 402b. See Spec. ¶ [24].
The reflective and transparent sub-pixels of the thin-film transistor
array substrate of the transreflective liquid crystal display are electrically
connected to different thin-film transistors, such that a molybdenum layer
formed between the transparent and reflective sub-pixels is not required.
See Spec. ¶ [29].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A thin-film transistor array substrate, applied to a transflective-liquid
crystal display, comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of scan lines on the substrate;
a plurality of data lines on the substrate; and
a plurality of pixels on the substrate, each of the pixels comprising a
transparent sub-pixel and a reflective sub-pixel, wherein each transparent
sub-pixel has a transparent pixel electrode and a first thin-film transistor,
each reflective sub-pixel has a reflective pixel electrode and a second thin-
film transistor, the first and second thin-film transistors of each of the pixels
are located at two sides of one data line and electrically connected thereto,
and the transparent pixel electrode is electrically insulated from the
reflective pixel electrode.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Saito US 4,775,861 Oct. 4, 1988
Kubo US 6,195,140 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
Appeal 2009-011233
Application 11/163,725

4
Appellant’s Prior Art Figs. 1-2 (APA Figs. 1-2)
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Applicant’s Prior Art Figures 1 and 2 (“APA Figures 1
and 2”) in view of Saito.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner’s modification of APA Figures 1
and 2 with Saito’s additional Thin Film Transistor (TFT) for “reducing the
area of defective elements” (Ans. 4) provides a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
The Supreme Court stated that “‘[r]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
Saito’s Figure 4 is depicted below:
Appeal 2009-011233
Application 11/163,725

5

Saito’s Figure 4 shows two sets of TFTs 3, 3’ associated with each of
the divided liquid crystal display elements (4, 4’)(col. 3, ll. 45-61).
The Examiner modified APA Figures 1 and 2 by adding “a second
bottom gate TFT” as taught by Saito’s Figure 4 wherein two TFTs (3, 3’) are
connected to each of the sub-pixels 4, 4’ for reducing the area of defective
elements on the display panel (Ans. 4). However, in essence, the
modification would result in substituting two of the same type of liquid
crystal elements 4, 4’, (since one liquid crystal element is divided into two)
each driven with thin field effect transistors 3, 3’ (Fig. 4) as taught by Saito,
having two different types of crystal elements as taught by the APA, wherein
one is transparent and the other is reflective.
The problem we identify with such a modification is that the reason
Saito divides the liquid crystal element into two (4, 4’), each with an
associated TFT, is that if one TFT is defective, visually the liquid crystal
element is seen as non-defective because the non-defective element reduces
the visional effect of the defective element (i.e., at least one of the two is
working) (col. 3, ll. 53-61). Appellant argues that by using two different
types of elements, as opposed to two of the same type of elements 4, 4’, as
suggested by the Examiner, would in fact emphasize the defect, in that if the
defective TFT drives the reflective element, then the non-defective
Appeal 2009-011233
Application 11/163,725

6
transparent element will show the defect even more, since only the
transparent element will operate. See App. Br. 7-8. We agree with
Appellant’s conclusion that adding an additional TFT in APA Figures 1 and
2 would not reduce the visional effect in case one TFT is defective, but
rather, emphasizes the visional defect of the liquid crystal element associated
with the defective TFT.
On the record before us, the Examiner’s response (Ans. 8), that the
information corresponding to the defective pixel would be transferred to the
non-defective pixel, is unsupported by the evidence and speculative at best.
Thus, Appellant’s argument has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-5, which depend from claim
1. Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s modification of APA Figures 1 and 2 with Saito’s
additional TFT for “reducing the area of defective elements” (Ans. 4) does
not provide a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc