Ex Parte Ryuh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2014

10598029 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KENTARO RYUH, KOJI UENO, and HIDETAKA MIZUMAKI
_____________

Appeal 2011-009332
Application 10/598,029
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 and 3 through 10.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a display having two sections, each with
different scanning circuits and with different display content. See Abstract
of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-009332
Application 10/598,029
2

1. A display device comprising a display panel and driving circuitry for
driving the display panel, wherein,
the display panel includes a first display section and a second
display section;
the first display section includes a plurality of first scanning
lines, a plurality of first signal lines, a plurality of first switching
elements each connected to one of the plurality of first scanning lines
and one of the plurality of first signal lines, and a plurality of first
pixels each connected to one of the plurality of first switching
elements;
the second display section includes a plurality of second
scanning lines, a plurality of second signal lines, a plurality of second
switching elements each connected to one of the plurality of second
scanning lines and one of the plurality of second signal lines, and a
plurality of second pixels each connected to one of the plurality of
second switching elements; and
the driving circuitry includes a first scanning line driving circuit
for supplying a first scanning signal to the plurality of first scanning
lines, a first signal line driving circuit for supplying a first data signal
to the plurality of first signal lines, a second scanning line driving
circuit for supplying a second scanning signal to the plurality of
second scanning lines, and a second signal line driving circuit for
supplying a second data signal for the plurality of second signal lines,
the driving circuitry being capable of driving the first display section
with a first vertical scanning frequency and driving the second display
section with a second vertical scanning frequency which is different
from the first vertical scanning frequency, both the first and second
vertical scanning frequencies used to display still images on the first
and second display sections are lower than both the first and second
vertical scanning frequencies used to display moving images on the
first and second display sections.

Appeal 2011-009332
Application 10/598,029
3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyoshi (JP 2001/117533) and Wakita (US
2002/0154077 A1). Answer 4-6.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyoshi, Wakita, and Baba (US 2002/0003522 A1).
Answer 6-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 through 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyoshi, Wakita, and Kwon (US 6,360,149
B1). Answer 8-9.
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyoshi, Wakita, and Morita (US 7,154,488 B2).
Answer 9-10.
ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments on pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief, directed to
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, present us with the issue:
did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would apply Wakita’s
frequency lowering technique to the display device of Nobuyoshi?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 14,
2010, Reply Brief filed March 10, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on January 13, 2011.
Appeal 2011-009332
Application 10/598,029
4

erred in finding the skilled artisan would apply Wakita’s frequency lowering
technique to the display device of Nobuyoshi. Appellants argue that Wakita
will only work in a display that has normally light and normally dark pixels.
Brief 10, 13, Reply Brief 4-7. Further, Appellants assert that displays such
as Nobuyoshi are only capable of using normally dark pixels and as such,
the frequency lowering technique of Wakita cannot be implemented on
Nobuyoshi. Brief 13-14. We are not persuaded by this argument. The
Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments states that the use of
normally light and normally dark pixels is not a requirement to change the
driving frequency. Answer 10-11. We concur with the Examiner’s findings.
We note that Wakita teaches that it is known to have displays with refresh
frequencies at 60Hz and in some cases at 120Hz and that the human eye is
sensitive to flicker at refresh frequencies lower than 60Hz. Para. 0002.
Wakita also teaches that using a lower frequency can reduce power
consumption. Para 0003. Thus, there is ample support for the Examiner’s
finding the skilled artisan would reduce the scanning frequency to optimize
(reduce) power consumption.
While, Appellants are correct that Wakita teaches using normally dark
and normally light pixels, Wakita teaches this is to reduce flicker when the
refresh frequency is as low as 5Hz (well below 60Hz). Para 0042. Thus, we
find the skilled artisan would recognize the use of normally dark and
normally light pixels is tied to reducing flicker at very low refresh
frequencies and not the power savings of using lower frequencies. In as
much as Appellants argument is that the skilled artisan would not combine
Wakita’s teaching of a 5Hz refresh rate into Nobuyoshi, we are not
persuaded as such an argument is directed to a bodily incorporation of the
Appeal 2011-009332
Application 10/598,029
5

two references and is not required to meet the claim.2 For the foregoing
reasons Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Appellants assert that the rejection of claims 3 through 10 is in error
for the same reasons as claim 1. Brief 16. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 10 for the same reasons as
discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 through 10 is
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).

AFFIRMED

ELD

2 We note that claim 1 merely recites the frequencies in relation to each
other and does not recite the actual refresh frequencies used. To meet the
claim the Examiner does not need to show combining Wakita’s 5Hz
embodiment with Nobuyoshi.