Ex parte VAN ASMA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 2001

08812222 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CORNELIS G. M. VAN ASMA
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2450
Application No. 08/812,222
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
an examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4. We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal relates to plasma-
addressed liquid crystal (“PALC”) displays. A conventional
PALC display comprises a layer of liquid electro-optical
material such as liquid crystal (“LC”), data electrodes
extending in a row direction, and plasma channels extending in
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 2
Application No. 08/812,222
a column direction. Color filters representing red, green,
and blue are aligned with corresponding data electrodes. Each
intersection of one plasma channel with three data electrodes
(i.e., a first for red, a second for green, and a third for
blue) defines a group of LC-picture elements (“LC-pixels”).
Accordingly, groups of three adjacent LC-pixels are obtained
of which each pixel is associated with another of the primary
colors.
In contrast, a group of LC-pixels in the appellant’s PALC
display is formed by one data electrode extending in the
column direction and three plasma channels extending in the
row direction. (The different color filters are aligned with
corresponding plasma channels of the group so that the filters
extend in the row direction rather than the column direction.)
Accordingly, the number of data electrodes (in the row
direction), the number of connections thereto, and the number
of drivers coupled to these connections are reduced from those
of the conventional PALC display by a factor of three.
Although the number of plasma channels (in the column
direction) is increased from those of the conventional
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 3
Application No. 08/812,222
PALC display by a factor of three, the total number of
connections is decreased because the number of rows is lower
than the number of groups of pixels.
Claim 1, which is representative for present purposes,
follows:
1. A plasma-addressed colour display device
comprising:
a layer of electro-optical material (42) sandwiched
between elongated data electrodes (18) and plasma
channels (20) to obtain a matrix structure of
pixelelements (16), and
colour filters being associated with the
pixelelements (16) for obtaining groups (G) of adjacent
pixelelements (16) representing different colours
enabling display of a colour picture, characterized in
that the display device is adapted to comprise groups (G)
of pixelelements (16) each being constituted with a
common data electrode (18) cooperating with a group of
plasma channels (20), the colour filters being aligned
with the plasma channels (20).
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Buzak et al. (Buzak) 4,896,149 Jan. 23,
1990
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 4
Application No. 08/812,222
Tanamachi 5,523,770 June
4, 1996
(filed Mar. 27, 1995)
Kitajima et al. (Kitajima) 5,091,722 Feb. 25,
1992.
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
[“§ 103(a)”] as being obvious over Tanamachi and as being
obvious over Buzak in view of Kitajima. Rather than reiterate
the arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer
the reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 as being obvious over
Tanamachi and in rejecting claims 2 and 4 as being obvious
over Buzak in view of Kitajima. We are not persuaded,
however, that he erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3 as being
obvious over Buzak in view of Kitajima. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part. We begin by noting that the references
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 5
Application No. 08/812,222
represent the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579,
35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(finding that the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in concluding
that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the
references of record); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198
USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO usually must evaluate
... the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of
the literature."). Of course, “‘[e]very patent application
and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons
skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed
....’” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA
1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421,
424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know
something” about the art “apart from what the references
disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319
(CCPA 1962). With these principles in mind, we consider the
following rejections:
• Rejection over Tanamachi
• Rejection over Buzak in view of Kitajima.
We begin with the former rejection.
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 6
Application No. 08/812,222
I. Rejection over Tanamachi
The examiner asserts, "Tanamachi teaches a plasma display
device comprising color filters for providing color display
picture(see ... column 7, lines 26-28). It would have been
obvious to have modified Tanamachi's prior art with the
teaching of Tanamachi, so as to provide a color display."
(Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellant argues, "there is no
teaching or suggestion in the reference that a group of pixel
elements representing different colors is associated with a
common data electrode ...." (Appeal Br. at 7.) The examiner
responds, “such limitation can not [sic] be found anywhere in
claims 1-4.” (Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1-4 specify
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 7
Application No. 08/812,222
in pertinent part the following limitations: "color filters
being associated with the pixelelements (16) for obtaining
groups (G) of adjacent pixelelements (16) representing
different colors enabling display of a color picture,
characterized in that the display device is adapted to
comprise groups (G) of pixelelements (16) each being
constituted with a common data electrode (18) ...."
Accordingly, the claims require inter alia associating a group
of pixels representing different colors with a common data
electrode.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the applied prior art. "’A prima facie
case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In
re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (quoting
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying
the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ... resort to
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 8
Application No. 08/812,222
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). "In
relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must
provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to
reasonably support the determination that the allegedly
inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings
of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (citing In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981); In re
Wilding, 535 F.2d 631, 190 USPQ 59 (CCPA 1976); Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 40 USPQ 665 (CCPA 1939)).
Here, the section of Tanamachi cited by the examiner
mentions that, “in the case of a color display device, a
plurality of color filters are formed so as to be associated
with the signal electrodes D, respectively.” Col. 7, ll. 26-
28. Although the reference’s plurality of color filters are
associated with its signal electrodes, the examiner fails to
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 9
Application No. 08/812,222
provide a factual basis or technical reasoning to reasonably
support a determination that more than one of the color
filters is associated with the same signal electrode. To the
contrary, it is possible that only one of the color filters is
associated with each of the signal electrodes.
Because no factual basis or technical reasoning supports
a determination that more than one of Tanamachi’s color
filters is associated with one of its signal electrodes, we
are not persuaded that the teachings from the applied prior
art would have suggested the limitations of "color filters
being associated with the pixelelements (16) for obtaining
groups (G) of adjacent pixelelements (16) representing
different colors enabling display of a color picture,
characterized in that the display device is adapted to
comprise groups (G) of pixelelements (16) each being
constituted with a common data electrode (18) ...."
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-4 as being
obvious over Tanamachi. We proceed to the second rejection.
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 10
Application No. 08/812,222
II. Rejection over Buzak in view of Kitajima
At the outset, we note that claims that are not argued
separately stand or fall together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re
Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the
patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately,
moreover, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which
they depend.
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.
1986)(citing In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3
(Fed. Cir. 1983) and Burckel, 592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at
70.) Here, the appellant indicates, “[c]laims 1, 3 ... stand
together.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) Therefore, the claims stand or
fall together in a group. We select claim 1 to represent the
group.
The appellant argues, "[t]here is no teaching or
suggestion in either Buzak et al. or Kitajima et al. that a
group of pixel elements representing different colors is
associated with a common data electrode ...." (Appeal Br. at
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 11
Application No. 08/812,222
9.) The examiner “disagrees with that since Kitajima et al
teach such feature(see figure 25).” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)

For the reasons explained regarding the rejection over
Tanamachi, representative claim 1 requires inter alia
associating a group of pixels representing different colors
with a common data electrode. The applied prior art would
have suggested the limitations. More specifically, “FIGS. 24
and 25 [of Kitajima] are block diagrams illustrating two
different embodiments for the color display drive ....” Col.
3, ll. 10-11. In the embodiment of Figure 24, “color filters
of R (red), G (green) and B (blue) are arranged in the
vertical direction.” Col. 7, ll. 67 - col. 8, l. 1. The
appellant observes, “[i]n Fig. 24, the color filters are
arranged vertically (ie, R is associated with one column
(data) electrode, G with the next column electrode, and so
forth).” (Appeal Br. at 8.) In contrast, the embodiment of
Figure 25 shows a group of color filters (viz., a red filter,
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 12
Application No. 08/812,222
a green filter, and a blue filter) associated with each of the
column data electrodes.
Because Kitajima shows a group of color filters
associated with each of the column data electrodes, we are
persuaded that the teachings from the applied prior art would
have suggested the limitations of "color filters being
associated with the pixelelements (16) for obtaining groups
(G) of adjacent pixelelements (16) representing different
colors enabling display of a color picture, characterized in
that the display device is adapted to comprise groups (G) of
pixelelements (16) each being constituted with a common data
electrode (18) ...." Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1 and 3 as being obvious over Buzak in view of
Kitajima.
The appellant further argues, “[c]laim 2 calls for a
plasma driver circuit for selectively activating the plasma
channels in a group, and a data driver circuit for supplying a
group of primary color signals sequentially to a common driver
electrode. This is in contrast to the prior art arrangement
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 13
Application No. 08/812,222
(eg., Buzak et al.) in which the plasma channels are activated
one-by-one, and each primary color signal is applied to a
separate data electrode.” (Appeal Br. at 10.) The examiner
does not respond to the argument but merely observes, “Buzak
et al teach a display device comprising a plasma driver
circuit(28) and a data driver circuit(24) ....” (Examiner’s
Answer at 4.)
Claims 2 and 4 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: “a plasma driver circuit (28) coupled to
selectively activate the plasma channels (20) in a group for
selecting pixelelements (16) associated with the activated
plasma channel (20), and a data driver circuit (24) receiving
a video information V, and supplying colour data signals each
representing one of a group of primary colours to the common
data electrode (18) one by one ....” Accordingly, the claims
require inter alia selectively activate plasma channels in a
group and supplying signals each representing one of a group
of primary colors to a common data electrode one-by-one.
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 14
Application No. 08/812,222
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the applied prior art. “In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “If
examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima
facie case of unpatentability, then without more the
applicant is entitled to grant of the patent.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 (citing In re Grabiak,
769 F.2d 729, 733, 226 USPQ 870, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, Buzak teaches that “[c]olumn electrodes 18 receive
data drive signals of the analog voltage type developed on
parallel output conductors 22' by different ones of the output
amplifiers 22 (FIGS. 2-6) of a data driver or drive drive
[sic] circuit 24, and channels 20 receive data strobe signals
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 15
Application No. 08/812,222
of the voltage pulse type developed on parallel output
conductors 26' by different ones of the output amplifiers 26
(FIGS. 2-6) of a data strobe or strobe means or strobe circuit
28.” Col. 6, ll. 52-60. The examiner fails to allege, let
alone show, however, that the data strobe selectively
activates plasma channels in a group or that the data strobe
supplies signals each representing one of a group of primary
colors to a common data electrode one-by-one. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded that the teachings from the applied prior
art would have suggested the limitations of “a plasma driver
circuit (28) coupled to selectively activate the plasma
channels (20) in a group for selecting pixelelements (16)
associated with the activated plasma channel (20), and a data
driver circuit (24) receiving a video information V, and
supplying color data signals each representing one of a group
of primary colours to the common data electrode (18) one by
one ....” Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 2 and
4 as being obvious over Buzak in view of Kitajima.
CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 16
Application No. 08/812,222
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-4 under § 103(a) as
being obvious over Tanamachi and the rejection of claims 2 and
4 as being obvious over Buzak in view of Kitajima are
reversed. The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under § 103(a) as
being obvious over Buzak in view of Kitajima, however, is
reversed. The affirmance is based only on the arguments made
in the briefs. Arguments not made therein are neither before
us nor at issue but are considered waived.
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 17
Application No. 08/812,222
No time for taking any action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LLB/dal
Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 18
Application No. 08/812,222
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
US PHILIPS CORPORATION
580 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591