Ex Parte Yamaguchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2014

11092961 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KAZUNORI YAMAGUCHI
_____________

Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 53, 55-57, 59, 64-71, and 85-102.
We affirm.

Representative Claims
53. An image display device comprising:
a display signal driver configured to output voltages, said voltages
being in accordance with image data;
a light-emitting/photo-detection cell configured to output an emission
of light during a light emission mode, one of the voltages controlling the
brightness of said emission;
another light-emitting/photo-detection cell configured to output
another emission of light, another of the voltages controlling the brightness
of said another emission,
wherein said light-emitting/photo-detection cell during a photo-
detection mode is configured to detect said another emission reflected from a
target, detection of said another emission by said light-emitting/photo-
detection cell being inhibited during said light emission mode,
wherein said the light-emitting/photo-detection cell is a liquid crystal
device,
wherein the liquid crystal device includes a pair of transparent
substrates facing each other, and a liquid crystal layer sandwiched in
between the transparent substrates,
and the light-emitting/photo-detection cell is disposed within the
liquid crystal layer.
85. An image display device comprising:
a line of light-emitting cells, each of the light-emitting cells during a
photo-detection period being configured to output a light emission;
a line of photo-detection cells adjacent said line of light-emitting cells,
each of the photo-detection cells during said photo-detection period being
configured to detect said light emission,
wherein said each of the photo-detection cells during a time period
other than said photo-detection period is configured to output light, said each
of the light-emitting cells during a period other than said photo-detection
period being configured to detect an emission of light.
Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961

3

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 85, 92, and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Reime (US 2004/0251402 A1; Dec. 16, 2004). Ans. 4.
Claims 91, 95, and 96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reime. Ans. 6.
Claims 53, 55-57, 59, 64, 66-70, 86, 87, 89, 94, and 97-102 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reime and den
Boer (US 6,947,102 B2; Sep. 20, 2005 [hereinafter Boer]). Ans. 8.
Claims 65 and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reime, Boer, and Gettemy (US 7,006,080 B2; Feb. 28,
2006). Ans. 16.
Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reime, Boer, and Yamazaki (US 6,424,326 B2; July 23,
2002). Ans. 17.
Claim 90 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reime, Boer, and Westerman (US 2002/0015024 A1; Feb.
7, 2002). Ans. 18.

ANALYSIS1
Arguments in the Reply Brief that could have been presented in the
Appeal Brief to rebut rejections made in the Final Office Action are waived
and not considered. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961

4

(informative decision) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Anticipation Rejection
Claim 85
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Reime describes a line of light-emitting cells, as recited in claim 85?
Appellant argues that Reime does not describe the disputed limitations
emphasized above. App. Br. 10-12. Further, Appellant argues that Reime
“fails to expressly state that ‘all of the display elements up to the set value’
are switched on during a photo-detection period.” Reply Br. 4 (emphases
omitted). In particular, Appellant argues, “Reime fails to state that ‘all of
the display elements up to the set value’ would necessarily include each
element in the LED row being switched on.” Id. at 5 (emphases omitted).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings made by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and reasoning for
emphasis as follows.

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 55-57, 59, 64-71, 86-90, 92-
94, and 97-102. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961

5

Figure 4 of Reime is reproduced below:

Figure 4 illustrates an embodiment of the opto-electronic display unit.
First, as depicted above, the Examiner finds that the light strip (1a, 1b,
1c, …1n) in Reime can be construed as a line of light-emitting cells. Ans.
19. As also depicted above, and based on our review of Reime (¶ [0041]),
we find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, has properly found that the
claimed “line of light-emitting cells” reads on Reime’s light strip.
Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the broad claim language. For example, Appellant contends Reime
“fails to expressly state that ‘all of the display elements up to the set value’
are switched on during a photo-detection period.” Reply Br. 4 (some
emphasis omitted). However, the claim language does not recite, “‘all of the
Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961

6

display elements up to the set value’ are switched on during a photo-
detection period.” Id. (some emphasis omitted). “[I]nterpreting what is
meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous
limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re
Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We are therefore satisfied that the cited disclosure of Reime describes
the disputed limitations. It follows that Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 85 as being anticipated by Reime.
Because claims 92 and 93 are not argued separately, they fall together
with claim 85 for the same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Obviousness Rejections
Claim 53
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Boer, at the least, suggests a light-emitting cell disposed within a liquid
crystal layer, as recited in claim 53?
Independent claim 53 recites, inter alia, “the light-emitting/photo-
detection cell is disposed within the liquid crystal layer.” Appellant
contends Boer fails to teach “a light-emitting/photo-detection cell disposed
within the liquid crystal.” App. Br. 19-20 (some emphasis omitted); Reply
Br. 18-20. However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Figure 7 of Boer
shows a Photo TFT which is disposed within a liquid crystal. Ans. 9, 23
(citing Boer, col. 4, ll. 3-10; col. 5, ll. 28-67). In particular, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings in the Answer on pages 9 and 23 as our own.
Appeal 2011-011470
Application 11/092,961

7

Appellant does not explain why it would not have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to dispose the light-emitting/photo-detection cell within the
liquid crystal layer. Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejections of claim 53.

Dependent Claims 91, 95, and 96
Appellant presents several arguments that Reime fails to teach or
suggest the limitations of dependent claims 91, 95, and 95. App. Br. 12-17;
Reply Br. 6-16. The Examiner responds that Reime is not deficient and
points out where Reime teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 91, 95,
and 96. Ans. 20-23. We specifically find the Examiner has articulated (id.)
how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings. We agree with
and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and analysis, and
reach the same legal conclusions as in the Examiner’s Answer. Id.

CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 85, 92, and 93 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and claims 53, 55-57, 59, 64-71, 86-91, and 94-102 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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

bab