Ex Parte Woo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201311480230 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAE-HYUCK WOO and JONG-HAN CHOI ____________ Appeal 2011-009352 Application 11/480,230 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 4-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-009352 Application 11/480,230 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “driving liquid crystal displays having multi-channel single-amplifier structures” (Spec. 1:12-14). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for driving a display panel having a multi- channel, single-amplifier, thin-film-transistor (TFT) structure, the method comprising applying video signals to source lines of the display panel for a predetermined number of frames, wherein, during floating periods of the source lines, the number of times of capacitive coupling according to the video signals transmitted to adjacent source lines is the same for the source lines, wherein the video signals are applied to the source lines for every six frames, and wherein applying the video signals to the source lines comprises sequentially applying red, green and blue signals to the source lines having three channels for first and second frames, sequentially applying the blue, red and green signals to the source lines for third and fourth frames, and sequentially applying the green, blue and red signals to the source lines for fifth and sixth frames. REJECTIONS and REFERENCES The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Yen (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2006/0176256 A1, published August 10, 2006), and Chang (U.S. Patent US 7,397,484 B2, issued July 8, 2008) (Ans. 3-11). Appeal 2011-009352 Application 11/480,230 3 The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of AAPA, Yen, Chang, and Yamada (U.S. Patent 6,556,181 B2, issued April 29, 2003) (Ans. 11-12). The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of AAPA, Yen, Chang, and Waterman (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2005/0052394 A1, published March 10, 2005) (Ans. 12-13). The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of AAPA, Yen, Chang, Waterman, and Yamada (Ans. 13-14). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Appellants missed their opportunity to “immediately object to the usage of AAPA as a prior art reference in response . . . to the initial office action” (Ans. 18). Therefore, the Examiner asserts, interpreting the portions of the Specification relied on in the rejection as AAPA is proper (id.). We do not agree. Appellants submitted an Amendment to the Specification on March 23, 2010, moving the material relied on by the Examiner from the section titled “Description of the Related Art” to the section titled “Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments.” This Amendment was entered by the Examiner. Thus, the Examiner has acquiesced to this change and the sections of the Specification relied on as being prior art are no longer identified under the “Related Art” section, and are not considered prior art. Even, assuming arguendo, the material in the Specification relied on by the Examiner is considered prior art, we do not agree with the Examiner Appeal 2011-009352 Application 11/480,230 4 that Chang’s teaching “repeating the same sequence for the subsequent three frames” meets Appellants’ claimed limitation of sequentially applying the same sequence of signals to every two lines (Ans. 19). The Examiner asserts because Appellants have not provided how the limitation of applying the video signals in the sequential pattern as claimed is advantageous, used for a particular purpose, or solves a problem, an ordinarily skilled artisan would sequentially apply signals in the manner claimed to achieve minimizing coupling effects between source lines (Ans. 6-7). It is noted Appellants do cite the advantage of applying signals in the manner claimed in their Specification (see Abstract; Spec. 6:6-8, “uniformly compensating kick-back noise in a liquid crystal display having a multi- channel single-amplifier structure”). The Examiner has not shown why the express sequence claimed is not advantageous or where Chang and Yen disclose this advantage (the portions of Chang (col. 3, ll. 18-26) and Yen (¶¶ [0038] and [0044]-coupling is minimized) cited by the Examiner do not recite the features asserted by the Examiner). Further, the Examiner has identified no requirement that an advantage be expressly recited in a claim. Thus, for these reasons, the Examiner erred in concluding Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 5, and dependent claims 4 and 6-8 are obvious over the cited references. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 4-8 is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation