Ex Parte Watson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

11734572 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PHILIP E. WATSON and
ANDREW J. OUDERKIRK
________________

Appeal 2012-011097
Application 11/734,572
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a transflective display. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A transflective display having a reflective viewing mode and a
transmissive viewing mode, the display comprising:
a liquid crystal (LC) panel having an array of pixels;
a front and back polarizer disposed on opposed sides of the LC panel;
a backlight;
a transflector, which may optionally be or include the back polarizer,
disposed between the LC panel and the backlight;
Appeal 2012-011097
Application 11/734,572

2
wherein the backlight produces multiple light components that are
separated temporally to give the display a full color appearance in the
transmissive viewing mode.

The Reference
Adachi US 2004/0100598 A1 May 27, 2004
The Rejection
Claims 1 and 3–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Adachi.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellants argue only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
We therefore limit our discussion to that claim. Claims 3–7 stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Adachi discloses a display device comprising a transmission
polarization axis variable portion (400) (which the Examiner relies upon as
corresponding to the Appellants’ liquid crystal panel (Ans. 6)) including a
liquid crystal layer (407), an absorbing polarization selection member (500)
(which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ front
polarizer (Ans. 6)), an absorbing polarization selection member (208) (which
the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ back polarizer
(Ans. 6)), a light-emitting image display portion (1000) (which the Examiner
relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ backlight (Ans. 6)) and a
reflective polarization selection member (300) (which the Examiner relies
upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ transflector (Ans. 6)) (¶¶ 68–70;
Fig. 1). The device can have an image display status wherein both image
light (3001) (backlight) and outside light (3002) are transmitted through the
Appeal 2012-011097
Application 11/734,572

3
reflective polarization selection member (300) such that the display device
displays an image (¶¶ 74–76; Fig. 1), or a mirror status wherein outside light
is reflected by the reflective polarization selection member (300) and image
light (3001) is absorbed by absorbing polarization selection member 500
such that the display device functions as a mirror (¶¶ 77–80; Fig. 2).
The Appellants argue that because Adachi’s image display status’s
image is not viewable when the display device is in the mirror status, the
mirror status is not a reflective viewing mode (App. Br. 4).
The Appellants claim a transflective display which, the Appellants’
claim term “transflector” requires, is viewable in both the reflective and
transmissive modes (Spec. 2:7–9). That term does not require that the image
displayed in the transmissive mode is viewable in the reflective mode.
Because Adachi’s display is viewable when the device is in the mirror status,
that status is a reflective viewing mode as that term is used by the
Appellants.
The Appellants argue that “the reflective viewing mode and a
transmissive viewing mode are separate viewing modes and not
simultaneous viewing modes” (Reply Br. 5).
Because Adachi’s image display status and mirror status are separate
viewing modes, considering Adachi’s mirror status to be a reflective viewing
mode is consistent with that argument.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Adachi
is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-011097
Application 11/734,572

4
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED

cdc