Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2018

13752154 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131752, 154 01/28/2013
20995 7590 05/11/2018
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ji-Yeon Yang
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SDCSHN.240AUS 6994
EXAMINER
BIBBEE, CHA YCE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JI-YEON YANG, GEUN-YOUNG JEONG, TAKES HI KA TO,
and MYUNG-HO LEE
Appeal2017-007605
Application 13/752,154 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Display Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-007605
Application 13/752,154
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to driving the
sub-pixels of an organic light emitting display. (Abstract.) Independent
claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An organic light emitting display device, comprising:
a display panel including a plurality of sub-pixels
arranged in a sub-pixel color arrangement, wherein the display
panel is configured to operate in a plurality of positions, each
position having a sub-pixel color pattern based on the sub-pixel
color arrangement;
a scan driver configured to drive scan lines coupled to the
sub-pixels;
a data processor configured to receive a first data and to
generate a second data based on the first data, wherein the first
data is supplied according to the sub-pixel color pattern based
on the sub-pixel color arrangement, wherein the data processor
generates the second data by changing grayscale values of the
first data for only sub-pixels positioned in each edge of the
display panel; and
a data driver configured to drive data lines coupled to the
sub-pixels and positioned in a direction intersecting the scan
lines, wherein the data lines are driven by the first or second
data.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
second paragraph as being indefinite. (Final Act. 3.) This rejection is not
addressed by Appellants and is therefore summarily affirmed.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 1 0, 11, and 1 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown Elliott et al. (US
2
Appeal2017-007605
Application 13/752,154
2012/0026216 Al, pub. Feb. 2, 2012) (hereinafter "Elliott"), and Jackson
(US 2009/0141045 Al, pub. June 4, 2009). (Final Act. 4--9.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2--4, 12-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott, Jackson, and Chen et al. (US
2012/0162156 Al, pub. June 28, 2012) (hereinafter "Chen"). (Final Act. 9-
14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Elliott, Jackson, and Han (US 2010/0149204 Al,
pub. June 17, 2010). (Final Act. 14--15.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue2 :
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Elliott and
Jackson teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "wherein the
data processor generates the second data by changing grayscale values of the
first data for only sub-pixels positioned in each edge of the display panel,"
and the commensurate limitation in independent claim 7. (App. Br. 10-11.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 19, 2016) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 21, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed May 19, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Apr. 20, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-007605
Application 13/752,154
ANALYSIS
For the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Elliott of rendering sub-pixel data for sub-pixels in different sub-pixel
arrangements, wherein the sub-pixel data for each edge is processed
differently. (Final Act. 5; Ans. 17; Elliott i-fi-f 121-155.) However, as
Appellants argue, "the Examiner fails to cite to any portion of Elliot as
describing 'changing grayscale values of the first data for only sub-pixels
positioned in each edge of the display panel,' as recited in Claim 1" -
rather, "Elliot [sic] discloses transform equations for the 'inner array of
square sample areas 52' and different transform equations '[fJor the edge
sample points 35' and '[t]he comer and 'near' comers."' (App. Br. 10-11.)
Appellants thus persuasively distinguish Elliott because rather than
"calculating the chrominance level 'for only sub-pixels positioned in each
edge of the display panel,' . . . transform equations are still applied to
calculate (e.g., change) the chrominance value at the center area .... "
(Reply Br. 4--5.)
Because the Examiner's rejection solely relies on Elliott for the claim
limitation at issue, we are constrained by the record to find the Examiner
errs in rejecting independent claims 1 and 7.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1 and 7 as obvious over Elliott and Jackson.
We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 5, 8, 10, 11, and
17 over Elliott and Jackson, of claims 2--4, 12-16, and 18 over Elliott,
4
Appeal2017-007605
Application 13/752,154
Jackson, and Chen, and of claims 6 and 9 over Elliott, Jackson, and Han,
which claims depend from claims 1 or 7.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of
claim 18.
We reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5