Ex Parte Yun

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 17, 2008

10183445 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SANG CHANG YUN
__________

Appeal 2007-2946
Application 10/183,445
Technology Center 2600
___________

Decided: January 17, 2008
___________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and MARC. S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2007-2946
Application 10/183,445

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 to 22.
Claim 14 is representative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
14. A method of driving a liquid crystal display, comprising the steps of:
combining pixel data in a current horizontal period with pixel data in a
previous horizontal period to produce combined pixel data in every horizontal
period; and
applying the combined pixel data to liquid crystal cells that are connected
together in a zigzag pattern.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
is:
Kabuto US 5,151,689 Sep. 29, 1992
Yamamoto US 2001/0011981 A1 Aug. 9, 2001
Uchino US 6,512,505 B1 Jan. 28, 2003
(filed Mar. 13, 2000)
Ishizaki EP 0 558 059 A2 Sep. 1, 1993

The Examiner rejected claims 4 to 9 and 14 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based upon the teachings of Kabuto.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3 and 17 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kabuto and Yamamoto.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 12, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kabuto and Ishizaki.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, and 20 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2007-2946
Application 10/183,445

3
based upon the teachings of Kabuto and Uchino.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection, Appellants contend that
Kabuto does not teach liquid crystal cells connected together in a zigzag pattern,
and that Kabuto does not combine pixel data in a current horizontal period with
pixel data in a previous horizontal period to produce combined pixel data in every
horizontal period (Br. 9 and 10). The Examiner contends that the thin film
transistors M11 and M12, for example, in Kabuto are connected in a zigzag pattern
to gate lines, and that the timing controller 3 functions to control the data driver 2
to thereby combine pixel data in a current horizontal period with pixel data from a
previous horizontal period to produce combined pixel data (Ans. 3 and 7).
We agree with the Examiner’s argument that Kabuto describes liquid crystal
cells that are connected in a zigzag pattern. On the other hand, we agree with the
Appellant’s argument that Kabuto is silent as to combining pixel data from two
horizontal periods.
Kabuto clearly shows and describes liquid crystal cells (e.g., M11 and M12)
that are connected together in a zigzag pattern between two gate lines (Figure 1A).
None of the claims on appeal are limited to a zigzag pattern of liquid crystal cells
with respect to “a single gate line” (Br. 9). The same holds true for Appellant’s
argument that the thin film transistors in the claims on appeal are connected “in a
zigzag pattern about the given data line” (Br. 9).
With respect to the combination of pixel data from two horizontal periods,
we find that none of the waveform charts in Kabuto illustrates a combination of
pixel data from different horizontal periods (Figures 2, 4, 6, 8, 17, 18, and 20). In
Appeal 2007-2946
Application 10/183,445

4
each of the charts, the drive signal Dr1 never causes pixel data in a current
horizontal period to combine with pixel data from a previous horizontal period to
produce “combined pixel data” as set forth in the claims on appeal. Thus, the
anticipation rejection of claims 4 to 9 and 14 to 16 is reversed because each and
every limitation in the claims is not found either expressly or inherently in the cited
reference to Kabuto. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 3, 10 to 13, and 17 to 22 are
reversed because the teachings of Yamamoto, Ishizaki, and Uchino fail to cure the
noted shortcoming in the teachings of Kabuto.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

Appeal 2007-2946
Application 10/183,445

5

REVERSED

tdl/gw

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006