Ex Parte Yonemura

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

13251613 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/251,613 10/03/2011 Koji YONEMURA
22850 7590 04/20/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
387719US2 1043
EXAMINER
PAN,JIAX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOJI YONEMURA
Appeal2014-006101
Application 13/251,613
Technology Center 2800
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-8, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006101
Application 13/251,613
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a liquid crystal display panel and
liquid crystal display device. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. A liquid crystal display panel comprising liquid crystal
sealed between a first substrate and a second substrate, wherein
the first substrate includes:
gate lines;
source lines that are formed to cross the gate lines;
switching elements that are arranged adjacent to respective
intersections of the gate lines with the source lines;
pixel regions that are defined by the gate lines and the source
lines, the pixel regions being arranged in a matrix;
transparent pixel electrodes that are connected to the
switching elements; and
a transparent common electrode that includes electrode parts,
gap parts between the electrode parts and first and second step
portions respectively arranged adjacent to opposite ends of a
non-permeable conductive pattern in a cross-sectional view, the
transparent common electrode being arranged in an upper layer
of the transparent pixel electrodes so that a predetermined area
of the transparent common electrode overlaps the transparent
pixel electrode, with an insulating film interposed therebetween,
the transparent common electrode being configured to drive the
liquid crystal with the transparent pixel electrode,
wherein, in a plan view, a shading layer overlaps at least one
part of the nonpermeable conductive pattern where a light
leakage occurs in a front view by an alignment defect of a portion
of the liquid crystal associated with the non-permeable
conductive pattern disposed in a display region at a time of black
display, the shading layer includes a first eave and a second eave
protruding by a first distance from respective opposite sides of
the nonpermeable conductive pattern, and, in the cross-sectional
view, the shading layer is arranged over portions of the
2
Appeal2014-006101
Application 13/251,613
transparent common electrode that are at a same level as and
adjacent to respective lower portions of the first and second step
portions of the transparent common electrode, and
wherein in the plan view, the transparent common electrode
overlaps the nonpermeable conductive pattern, which is
overlapped by the shading layer.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Song et al. (US 2009/0322975 Al;
published Dec. 31, 2009) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2005/0253141 Al;
published Nov. 17, 2005).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Song, Ohta, and Matsumoto (US
7,259,820 B2; issued Aug. 21, 2007).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Song, Ohta, and Yoshida et al. (US
2004/0066480 Al; published Apr. 8, 2004).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Song, Ohta, and Lin et al. (US
2007 /0052899 Al; published Mar. 8, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-8 in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2014-006101
Application 13/251,613
We have considered Appellant's arguments and find them persuasive
of error.
Appellant contends that combining Ohta with Song is improper
because an artisan of ordinary skill "would have no motivation or reason to
look to Ohta as a basis to modify Song as proposed" by the Examiner
because Song is directed to a Fringe Field Switching (FPS) mode liquid
crystal display device, while Ohta is directed to an In-Plane Switching (IPS)
liquid crystal display device. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellant argues that in
Song, the liquid crystal display is driven on a pixel electrode and on a
transparent comb-tooth electrode, which overlap, while in Ohta, the liquid
crystal is driven generally only in the region between two comb-tooth
electrodes. Id. Appellant contends that, therefore, the liquid crystal display
device taught in Ohta is of a different liquid crystal display device type, has
a different pixel electrode-counter electrode configuration, and performs
different display driving operations associated with the pixel electrode-
counter electrode configuration than the liquid crystal display device taught
in Song. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that in both IPS and FPS modes,
the liquid crystal devices generate a horizontal electrical field, and
"modification of a shading layer can be applied between liquid crystal
display devices with different modes." Ans. 12.
Appellant's arguments regarding the differences between FPS and IPS
mode liquid crystal display devices, standing alone, do not persuade us of
Examiner error. However, we agree with Appellant that, on the record
before us, the Examiner's explanation does not amount to sufficient
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary
4
Appeal2014-006101
Application 13/251,613
skill to have modified the FFS mode liquid crystal display panel of Song
with the arrangement of the shading layer taught by Ohta. See Reply 2-7.
Moreover, when the Examiner rejected claim 1, the Examiner found it
reasonable to combine Song and Ohta because both references are directed
to FPS mode devices. See Advisory Act. 2. In the Answer, after
recognizing that Ohta is directed to an IPS mode device, the Examiner
presented a new rationale for combining the references, but did not articulate
or explain it sufficiently to establish that an artisan of ordinary skill would
have modified the liquid crystal display panel of Song with the shading layer
arrangement of Ohta. See Ans. 11. The Examiner merely stated that both
types of displays are generating horizontal electrical fields and that
modification of a shading layer can be applied between the devices, which is
insufficient to explain or establish a reason why the artisan of ordinary skill
would have made the modification.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 1 or the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent
claims 2-8, which depend from claim 1. Because this issue is dispositive of
the appeal, we do not address other issues that the Appellant raised in the
Briefs.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
5