Ex Parte Yang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201813752154 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation