Ex Parte OH et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13312492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/312,492 12/06/2011
127226 7590 10/03/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DaeseokOH
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.
1630-1005PUS 1 1994
EXAMINER
MISTRY, RAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAESEOK OH, SAICHANG YUN, MINHWA KIM,
BYEONGSEONG SO, SEUNGHW AN SHIN, and
YOUNGSUNG CHO
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 3
1 Appellants identify LG Display Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
2 Claims 4 and 6-8 were canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 6, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed June 12, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Jan. 15, 2015 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed May 1,
2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 1, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a liquid crystal display. (Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A liquid crystal display comprising:
an LCD panel including data lines formed along a column
direction, gate lines formed along a row direction perpendicular
to the column direction, and a plurality of pixels arranged in a
matrix pattern,
wherein the pixels include a first pixel and a second pixel,
and each of the pixels includes a first subpixel having a first
color, a second subpixel having a second color and a third
subpixel having a third color,
wherein subpixels of each of the pixels share one data line
through which first, second and third data voltages are
sequentially charged to the subpixels in a time-division manner,
wherein the data lines include a first data line connected to
the subpixels of the first pixel, and a second data line connected
to the subpixels of the second pixel,
wherein the gate lines include a first gate line connected to
the third subpixel of the first pixel and the first subpixel of the
second pixel, a second gate line connected to the first subpixel of
the first pixel and the third subpixel of the second pixel, and a
third gate line connected to the second subpixels of the first and
second pixels, and
wherein the first data voltages supplied from the first data
line and the second data line have a first polarity, and the second
and third data voltages supplied from the first data line and the
second data line have a second polarity.
(App. Br. 11 - Claims App'x.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Kabuto (US 5,151,689, Sept. 29, 1992) and Nakano (US 6,980,186 B2, Dec.
27, 2005). (Final Act. 3-7.)
2
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
Claim 1 recites
ANALYSIS
the gate lines include a first gate line connected to the third
subpixel of the first pixel and the first subpixel of the second
pixel, a second gate line connected to the first subpixel of the first
pixel and the third subpixel of the second pixel, and a third gate
line connected to the second subpixels of the first and second
pixels.
(See claim 1, supra.) Appellants contend this feature is not taught or
suggested by Kabuto. (App. Br. 6.) Figure 8 of the Specification, shown
below, depicts these features, where first, second, and third gate lines are
labeled G 1 to G3, respectively.
.FIG.8
-'-·· --x
The Specification Figure 8 shows a pixel array with data lines D 1, D2 and
gate lines G 1 to G9.
3
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
Appellants specifically argue Kabuto discloses a first gate line
connected to a subpixel R of a first pixel and a second pixel, and a second
gate line connected to a subpixel G of the first pixel and the second pixel,
which does not satisfy the claimed limitation. (App. Br. 6 citing Kabuto Fig.
16.) To the contrary, the Examiner finds Kabuto teaches these features.
(Final Act. 3-5.) Specifically, the Examiner states the first gate line (Gal)
connects to the third subpixel of the first pixel (through data line Dr 1) and to
the first subpixel of the second pixel (R), a second gate line (Ga2) connects
to the first subpixel of the first pixel (through data line Dr 1) and to the third
subpixel of the second pixel (through data line Dr2), and a third gate line
( Ga3) connects to the second subpixels of the first and second pixels
(through data lines Drl and Dr2). (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner views
"connected" as a broad term that includes a variety of connection interfaces
(e.g., electrical, physical, infrared, direct, audible, etc.) (Id.) The Examiner
notes Kabuto would be distinguished as a reference if Appellants had
amended claim 1 to recite the suggested language of" directly connected."
(Ans. 8.)
Figure 15 of Kabuto is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
Dr 1
FIG. 15
Kabuto Figure 15 shows three scanning lines provided for pixels in each row
(Gal to Ga9) and signal lines (Drl, Dr2) arranged at intervals of three
pixels. (Kabuto 10:19-21.)
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we
agree with the Examiner that the claimed limitation is shown in Kabuto for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. Specifically, the Examiner takes a broad
but reasonable interpretation of the term "connected" to find the gate lines
are connected to subpixels as claimed albeit in some cases indirectly.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Claim 1 also recites "wherein the first data voltages supplied from the
first data line and the second data line have a first polarity, and the second
5
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
and third data voltages supplied from the first data line and the second data
line have a second polarity." (See claim 1, supra.) The Specification,
Figure 9, shown below, depicts first and second data lines DI and D2
producing B-, R+, G+ pulses or B+, R-, G- pulses in a horizontal period,
which appears to be what Appellants' claim limitation is directed to.
FIG. 9
, HI .
~-~.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ~
POL-----'
G2 __J
G3 __ ___,
G4 -----'
GS ____ ___.
Gfi --------'
Specification Figure 9 shows polarity control signal POL, data voltages D 1
and D2, and gate pulses G 1 to G9 used to drive the pixel array of Figure 8.
6
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
Appellants argue Nakano's data line supplies a data voltage having a
polarity that does not change, and Nakano merely teaches that the data line
changes the data voltage polarity in horizontal time. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply
Br. 1-3.) The Examiner finds that Nakano (Fig. 2A) teaches wherein the
first data voltages supplied from the first data line (G 1) and the second data
line (G2) have first polarity (negative), and the second and third data
voltages on data lines (B 1, R2, B2, R3) have a second polarity (positive).
(Final Act. 4--5.) The Examiner further finds the claim does not recite that
the line polarities change, and thus Appellants' argument is not persuasive to
show Examiner error. We find no error in the Examiner's findings and
conclusion of obviousness.
Figure 2A of Nakano is reproduced below.
Fig. 2A
SS ' ' • • ' • ~ . " • . . ' . • . . • • • ' • •• ' • t!,. ' . ~ ., ,, • • • ' . ' . . • ' . . . ., . ' . " . , .. . " . '. ' . . . ' • ' • . . ,, ... ' . !: : '. : I ., • •• I > . . . • ' . .. ·I: . . . ' . .., . <. I • ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . . ... '. ' . . .. • • • ' . •• ' . ' . ' . ' . . . ,> • • 4: ... ' . 1:"' . . . ' . . . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . . ' . .. • , . ' . ' . 1 ; ' . ' . ' . . " . ' . ' . " . . : . . . • ' : • • '. ' . ~·I II ' . . . . . .
~-~u~
One Cyde
(three columns_>
7
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
Nakano Figure 2A in which positive or negative voltages are applied to
respective positive or negative pixels.
The Examiner also notes that nothing in the claims requires different
orders for charging pixels. (Ans. 8). The Examiner's comment appears to
have been prompted by a misquotation of the language of claim 1 in the
Argument section of the Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 5---6.) We regard claim 1
as presented in the Claims Appendix to be the properly recited claim.
Accordingly, there is no such language in claim 1 and we do not address this
issue further.
For the first time, in the Reply Brief, Appellants argue with
particularity against the combination of Kabuto and Nakano. (Reply Br. 2.)
Absent a showing of good cause, we do not consider new arguments in a
reply brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Even if we were to consider this argument, we would find it
unpersuasive because ii~ppellants' argument assumes Kabuto and }J akano
must be combined exactly as described in the references. However,
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference, nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 Fed. Cir. 1983
(citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed.
Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391F.2d953, 958 (CCPA 1968)). Furthermore,
8
Appeal2015-006662
Application 13/312,492
"[a] person of ordinary skill [in the art] is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007). We agree with the Examiner a person of ordinary skill would
have faced no difficulty in combining, conceptually, Kabuto's gate lines
with Nakano's data lines of different polarity to drive positive and negative
subpixels. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims and
therefore we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 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