Ex Parte Yamashita et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201411819404 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ______________ Ex parte JUNICHI YAMASHITA and KATSUHIDE UCHINO ______________ Appeal 2012-004639 Application 11/819,404 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–81. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-004639 Application 11/819,404 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a pixel circuit. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A pixel circuit disposed at an intersection of a scanning line and a signal line, the pixel circuit comprising: a sampling transistor, which samples a video signal from the signal line; a capacitive part, which holds an input voltage that includes the sampled video signal; a drive transistor, which receives the input voltage held by the capacitive part, the drive transistor supplying an output current; and a light-emitting element, which receives the output current supplied by the drive transistor and emits light with a luminance dependent upon the video signal, wherein the input voltage held by the capacitive part is corrected before an emission period to cancel dependence of the output current on a carrier mobility of the drive transistor. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1–81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunter (US 6,356,029 B1, Mar. 12, 2002) in view of Koo (US 7,180,236 B2, Feb. 20, 2007). Ans. 4–8. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-81 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations? Appeal 2012-004639 Application 11/819,404 3 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 7, 2011, the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 31, 2011, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 28, 2011, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner cited Hunter and Koo for the disputed limitations. Ans. 5–8. The Examiner finds Hunter discloses all claim elements except for carrier mobility for which Koo is cited. Ans. 6. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on pages 8 through 10 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 5–10. We have considered Appellants’ Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s findings. We further note that the Examiner has found teachings in the prior art and has provided a rationale for the combination (see Ans. 6). The Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider “the Appeal 2012-004639 Application 11/819,404 4 background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” id. at 417, and the basis for an obviousness rejection must include “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we find that the Examiner has provided adequate rationale for the combination, and accordingly, sufficient motivation for modifying Hunter with the teachings of Koo. Although some of the claims appear to be addressed separately by Appellants, the corresponding allegations are in actuality only conclusory statements that have little probative value. Mere arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–81. DECISION The rejection of claims 1–81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 Appeal 2012-004639 Application 11/819,404 5 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation