Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

13245635 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/245,635 09/26/2011
73576 7590
APPLE INC - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
06/21/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Young Bae Park
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.
Pll077US1 I APPL:0253 5549
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG BAE PARK, CHENG CHEN,
SHIH CHANG CHANG, ZHIBING GE, and JOHN Z.
ZHONG
Appeal2014-008654
Application 13/245,635
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-23. (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-008654
Application 13/245,635
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to reducing non-uniform capacitance
coupling between a data line and neighboring pixels in an electronic display
device. (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation
in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display device comprising:
a plurality of pixels disposed in a pixel array of rows and
columns, wherein each pixel comprises a pixel electrode of a first
conductive material;
a data line configured to carry image data signals to the
plurality of pixels, wherein the data line is disposed between two
columns of the pixel array; and
a data line distribution segment comprising the first conductive
material disposed between the two columns of the pixel array and
spaced a substantially uniform distance between each of the two
columns of the pixel array, wherein the data line distribution segment
is electrically coupled to the data line so as to cause a substantially
uniform data line to pixel electrode capacitance even when the data
line is disposed closer to one of the two columns of pixels than the
other.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2, 4--13, 16, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Jeong et al. (US
2009/0310073 Al; published Dec. 17, 2009), Ban et al. (US 2005/0185107
2
Appeal2014-008654
Application 13/245,635
Al; published Aug. 25, 2005), and Cho (2011/0102309 Al; published May
5, 2011).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jeong, Ban, Cho, and Tseng et al. (US.
2011/0128280 Al; published June 2, 2011).
Claims 14--15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jeong, Ban, Cho, and Tanase et al.
(US 7,652,223 B2; issued Jan. 26, 2010).
Claims 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jeong and Ban.
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Jeong, Ban, and Cho teaches or suggests
a data line distribution segment comprising the first conductive
material disposed between the two columns of the pixel array
and spaced a substantially uniform distance between each of the
two columns of the pixel array, wherein the data line
distribution segment is electrically coupled to the data line so as
to cause a substantially uniform data line to pixel electrode
capacitance even when the data line is disposed closer to one of
the two columns of pixels than the other
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 12, 14, 16, and 23?
The Examiner relies on Jeong to teach or suggest a data line so as to
cause a substantially uniform data line-to-pixel-electrode capacitance even
when the data line layer is disposed closer to one of the two columns of
pixels than the other. (Final Act. 3, citing Jeong, Figs. 9, 10, i-fi-f 19, 66, 67,
3
Appeal2014-008654
Application 13/245,635
71, 72). Further, the Examiner relies on Ban to teach or suggest a data line
distribution segment disposed between the two columns of the pixel array
and spaced a substantially uniform distance between each of the two
columns of the pixel array, wherein the data line distribution segment is
electrically coupled to the data line. (Final Act. 3--4, citing Ban, Figs. 9, 10,
i-fi-150-52). Additionally, the Examiner relies on Cho to teach or suggest the
first conductive material. (Final Act. 4--5, citing Cho Fig. 5, i-fi-180, 84; see
also Ans. 26-27).
Appellants contend Jeong "merely discloses horizontal electrode to
electrode electrical field uniformity between electrodes," not data line to
pixel electrode capacitance uniformity as recited in the claims. (Reply Br.
3--4; see App. Br. 9--10). Appellants further contend the claims require the
data line distribution segment, not the data lines, to cause the uniformity,
(App. Br. 10), and argue Ban does not teach or suggest its semiconductor
strips may be used to cause the claimed uniformity. (App. Br. 10).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. "In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Jeong describes "the horizontal electric fields induced between the first
electrodes 262 and the second electrodes 268 and 264 are uniform." (Jeong
i172; see also Jeong Figs. 9 and 10). Indeed, the Examiner finds "Jeong
teaches uniformity between electrodes, which are electrically connected to
data lines and is where the transmission of electric charge occurs." (Ans. 26;
see also Final Act. 3). Having considered the Examiner's findings with
respect to these teachings in Jeong, along with the Examiner's findings with
4
Appeal2014-008654
Application 13/245,635
respect to Ban and Cho, we find the Examiner has failed to explain with
specificity how Jeong in combination with Ban and Cho teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation as recited in claim 1, particularly with respect to the
claimed uniformity between the data line and electrode(s) caused by the data
line distribution segment being electrically coupled to the data line. Thus,
we conclude the Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 12, 14, 16,
and 23, which recite substantially similar limitations, and dependent claims
2-11, 13, 15, 17-22, which were not argued separately. (See App. Br. 13-
15).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5