Ex Parte Zehner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201612553120 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/553, 120 0910312009 26245 7590 05/31/2016 E INK CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 1000 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821-4165 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert W. Zehner 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. H-386DIV 5972 EXAMINER MATHEWS, CRYSTAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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): IP@eink.com dcole@eink.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT W. ZEHNER and KARL R. AMUNDSON Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-15, and 18-22. Claims 16 and 17 stand allowed, and claims 4 and 8 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to methods for reducing edge effects in electro-optic displays, in particular electrophoretic displays (such as those commonly used in consumer e-reader devices). See Spec. 2. Claims 1 and 1 Appellants identify E Ink Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 18 are independent, and are reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method of driving a bistable electro-optic display having a plurality of pixels each of which is capable of displaying at least two gray levels, the method comprising: displaying a first image on the display; and rewriting the display to display a second image thereon by applying to each pixel a waveform effective to cause the pixel to change from an initial gray level to a final gray level, wherein the rewriting of the display is effected by scanning the display at a rate of at least about 50 Hz and wherein the electro-optic display comprises a layer of electro-optic material having first and second electrodes on opposed sides thereof, and the spacing between the first and second electrodes is at least about twice the spacing between adjacent pixels of the display. 18. A bistable electro-optic display having a plurality of pixels, each of which is capable of displaying at least two gray levels, the pixels being divided into a plurality of groups, at least one pixel electrode being associated with each pixel and capable of applying an electric field thereto, and drive means for applying waveforms to the pixel electrodes, the drive means being arranged to select each of the groups of pixels in tum, wherein all the groups of pixels are selected within a period of not more than about 20 milliseconds. Br. 16, 18 (emphasis added). THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gates et al. (US 6,531,997 Bl; Mar. 11, 2003). Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 4--7. 2 Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gates and Zhou et al. (US 7,623,113 B2; Nov. 24, 2009). Final Act. 7-8. Claims 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue (US 2002/0033792 Al; Mar. 21, 2002) and Mazurek et al. (US 5,805, 117; Sept. 8, 1998). Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 9-11. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue, Mazurek, and Matsunaga (US 6,587,254 B2; July 1, 2003). Final Act. 11-12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following to highlight and address specific arguments. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Gates teaches "the spacing between the first and second electrodes is at least about twice the spacing between adjacent pixels of the display," as required in claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-13. Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds this limitation in Gates Figure 9 A, which the Examiner asserts illustrates the relative spacing claimed by Appellants. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner further 3 Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553,120 finds that, even without relying on the spacing shown in Figure 9A, the spacing of electrodes in Gates is a "matter of design choice" such that Appellants' claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Final Act. 5. Appellants dispute both findings, arguing that Figure 9 is not necessarily to scale, and that "design choice" does not render the claim obvious. Br. 12-13. We, however, are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims. Figure 9A of Gates is reproduced below. 100 116 Vcom = +V/2 Fig. 9A Figure 9 A illustrates a partial cross-section of an "encapsulated electrophoretic display," including discrete electrodes 104 and 106, each of which "defines a pixel of the display," and a common "transparent front electrode" 100. Gates col. 26, 11. 4--11. Capsules 110 (in practice, "at least 20") are disposed between each of the discrete electrodes and the transparent front electrode, and each capsule 110 contains "dark colored fluid" 114 and "light colored charged particles 116." Id. at col. 26, 11. 17-18, 23-27. Voltages applied to electrodes 100, 104, and 106 draw the particles 116 to 4 Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 either the front or rear of each particular capsule, thereby giving the capsule either a light or dark color. Id. at col. 26, 11. 23-39.2 Referring to Figure 9A, the Examiner finds the "gap between the first and second electrodes" (100 and 106) appears to be "roughly twice the gap between adjacent electrodes [104 and 106, each of which defines a pixel in the display]," as claim 1 requires. Ans. 3--4. Although we agree with Appellants' contention that patent drawings usually may lack any scale, see Br. 12, this is not the full extent of the Examiner's analysis. Critically, the Examiner further explains: the spacing between pixel electrodes of a display device is a matter of design choice based on the manufacturing methods used, the size and shape of the electrodes, and design considerations regarding possible interference between pixels. Also, the thickness of the display or gap between the top and bottom electrodes is also a matter of design choice based on the type of electro-optical medium used, the possible interference between signals from the top and bottom electrodes, and the desired thickness of the final display device. Final Act. 5. Accordingly, the Examiner finds "it would have been obvious" to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the display of Gates with the spacing of electrodes as recited in Appellants' claim, based upon the foregoing commonly known design considerations. Id. Appellants present no evidence to contradict the Examiner's findings regarding design considerations known in the art. See Br. 12-13. Appellants assert the Examiner's reasoning negates any "advantages [that] may flow from" the relationship between the elements, Br. 13, but 2 Figure 9B of Gates illustrates the same arrangement of elements, with different voltage value indicated. Appellants and the Examiner refer to the illustrations collectively as "Figure 9." 5 Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 Appellants' own Specification (and Brief) lacks any disclosure or suggestion of any such advantages. See Ans. 6-7. Moreover, the Specification appears to rely on electrode design parameters being known in the art, as the Specification (i-fi-f 39, 47) makes only cursory mention of electrode spacing without further description. Cf 35 U.S.C. § 112. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gates, and sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gates and Zhou. Claims 14 and 15 Appellants argue the Examiner erred for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1, and that Zhou does not cure the alleged deficiencies in Gates. For the reasons described above, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gates and Zhou. Claims 18-21 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated combine Inoue and Mazurek, the references relied upon in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 18-21. Appellants assert Mazurek "is almost exclusively concerned with liquid crystal displays," not electrophoretic displays, and one of ordinary skill "would know that he could not drive the electrophoretic displays [of Inoue]" with the 60 Hz "VGA controller" disclosed in Mazurek. Br. 14. Appellants, however, too narrowly construe the teachings of Mazurek. As the Examiner explains, Mazurek discloses that "[a]ltemative suitable display module configurations [for the driving system in Mazurek] 6 Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 include ... electrophoretic displays [such as the display in Inoue]." Ans. 8 (citing Mazurek col. 7, 11. 41--46). Mazurek teaches a "60 Hz" signal to drive the display, in order to transmit "information for a video frame ... every .0167 seconds" (16.7 milliseconds). Mazurek col. 5, 11. 54--58. This rate satisfies the claim limitation of selecting pixels "within a period of not more than about 20 milliseconds." Final Act. 9-10. Although Appellants argue the VGA controller in Mazurek would be incompatible with the electrophoretic display of Inoue, it is Mazurek's teaching of the driving signal rate that the Examiner relies upon, not the specific nature of the controller. Final Act. 9-10. Thus, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding one of ordinary skill would "apply a known video refresh rate [i.e., Mazurek] to an electrophoretic display [i.e., Inoue]" with the "expected results" of allowing a higher rate of "changing video images" displayed to the user. Final Act. 9-10.3 For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and Mazurek, for the reasons described above. Claim 22 Appellants argue the Examiner erred for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 18, and that Matsunaga does not cure the alleged deficiencies in Inoue and Mazurek. For the reasons described above, we 3 Moreover, Appellants' Specification includes no description of the significance of the "less than 20 milliseconds" rate and how Appellants accomplish that rate for an electrophoretic display while Mazurek allegedly (according to Appellants) would not be able to do so. Appellants' Specification simply repeats the disputed claim limitation. Spec. i-f 51. 7 Appeal2015-000669 Application 12/553, 120 sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue, Mazurek, and Matsunaga. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9- 15, and 18-22. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation