Kazunori Okumoto

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2020

14315373 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/315,373 06/26/2014 Kazunori OKUMOTO 005700-ME0108 1079
78198 7590 02/11/2020
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2020 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):
info@sbpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAZUNORI OKUMOTO
___________

Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–17, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to Applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Assignee,
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Disclosed embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate to “a liquid
crystal display device for controlling orientation directions of liquid crystal
molecules using an electric field between electrodes provided on the same
substrate.” Spec. 1.

Representative Claim
A liquid crystal display device including a plurality of pixels arranged
on a substrate, and rotating and controlling a liquid crystal molecule within a
plane parallel to said substrate in each of said pixels,
each of said pixels comprising:
a liquid crystal layer;
a pixel electrode arranged below said liquid crystal layer; and
a counter electrode arranged below said pixel electrode with an
insulation film located therebetween, wherein
pixels of the plurality of said pixels having a first slit formed to have
an inclination angle with respect to a rubbing direction in said pixel
electrode are defined as first pixels, said first slit being formed in said pixel
electrode,
pixels of the plurality of said pixels having a second slit formed to
have an inclination angle opposite to said first slit with respect to the rubbing
direction in said pixel electrode are defined as second pixels, said second slit
being formed in said pixel electrode,
in a case where a positive polarity or a negative polarity is allocated to
each of said pixels for each frame, at least one of said first pixels having said
positive polarity allocated thereto and at least one of said first pixels having
said negative polarity allocated thereto exist in the same frame, and at least
one of said second pixels having said positive polarity allocated thereto and
at least one of said second pixels having said negative polarity allocated
thereto exist in the same frame,

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed October 19, 2018
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed March 19, 2018 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer, mailed July 13, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed August
31, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

3
at least one row of said pixels includes said first pixels and said
second pixels,
at least one column of said pixels includes said first pixels and said
second pixels, and
every slit in each pixel of said plurality of pixels is formed in said
pixel electrode.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).

Rejections
A. Claims 1–8 and 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over Onogi in view of Lee in further view of
Kwon.
B. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Onogi in view of Lee in view of Kwon and in
further view of Fujita.

Name Reference Date
Kwon et al. US 2002/0047971 A1 April 25, 2002
Lee et al. US 2005/0286003 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Onogi et al. US 2007/0222907 A1 Sept. 27, 2007
Fujita US 2007/0229748 A1 Oct. 4, 2007

Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, and our discretion under 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of §103 Rejection A of claims
1–8, and 11–17 on the basis of representative claim 1. We separately
address §103 Rejection B, infra.
ANALYSIS
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

4
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections, and the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. On this record, Appellant does not proffer sufficient
argument or evidence to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. In
our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis.
Rejection A of claims 1–8 and 11–17 under § 103
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:

pixels of the plurality of said pixels having a first slit formed to
have an inclination angle with respect to a rubbing direction in
said pixel electrode are defined as first pixels, said first slit
being formed in said pixel electrode, pixels of the plurality of
said pixels having a second slit formed to have an inclination
angle opposite to said first slit with respect to the rubbing
direction in said pixel electrode are defined as second pixels,
said second slit being formed in said pixel electrode,
…
at least one row of said pixels includes said first pixels and said
second pixels, at least one column of said pixels includes said
first pixels and said second pixels.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix) (hereinafter, “the disputed limitation,”
emphasis added).

Regarding the disputed limitation, Appellant argues:
There is no suggestion whatsoever in Lee that pixels with
slits having different inclination angles can alternate in a row
direction and a column direction.
…
If Lee were combined with this [Fig. 12] embodiment of Onogi,
it might be possible to achieve a configuration in which
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

5
vertically adjacent pixels A (or vertically adjacent pixels B)
could have opposite inclination angles. Thus, this combination
might arguably achieve the claimed feature of "at least one
column of said pixels includes said first pixels and said second
pixels." However, this combination cannot reasonably be
interpreted to render obvious the claimed feature of "at least
one row of said pixels includes said first pixels and said second
pixels" or a combination of these two claimed features.

App. Br. 11–13.

Appellant also argues:
Onogi, Lee, and Kwon fail to disclose or suggest the “first
pixels” and the “second pixels,” and the features that “at least
one row of said pixels includes said first pixels and said
second pixels” and “at least one column of said pixels
includes said first pixels and said second pixels,” recited in
claims 1 and 11-13.
…
Onogi does not disclose or suggest the claimed first pixels and
second pixels or forming all of the slits (e.g., in both pixels A
and B) in only one of a pixel electrode or a counter electrode.
…
Lee at best suggests that pixels with slits having different
inclination angles can alternate in a column direction. There is
no suggestion whatsoever in any of the cited references that
pixels with slits having different inclination angles can alternate
in row direction and a column direction. Furthermore, as is
argued on pages 12-13 of the Appeal Brief, it is unreasonable to
combine Lee with the embodiments shown in Figs. 12-14 of
Onogi to achieve the above-noted claimed features.
Reply Br. 1–3.

In other words, Appellant argues that the combination of Onogi, Lee,
and Kwon does not teach or suggest pixels with slits having different
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

6
inclination angles that can alternate in a row direction and a column
direction.
Regarding alternating pixels in a row direction and a column
direction, the Examiner finds:
the office relied upon prior art Onogi et al display device
wherein slits can be formed on pixel electrodes as well as
common (i.e. counter) electrodes wherein at least two pixels
(i.e. first and second pixels) having slits can be disposed on at
least one row and on at least one column.

Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner. Figure 13 of Onogi shows different
pixels A and B in alternate rows and alternate columns:

FIG. 13 shows a layout of a whole
pixel region in a liquid crystal display device.

In addition, paragraph 61 of Onogi states:

the pixels A and B alternate in the left to right direction in each
row and further alternate in the column direction (vertical
direction) as well, as shown in FIG. 13. In other words, the
pixels A and B are alternately disposed in the left to right
direction in odd-numbered rows, and are alternately disposed in
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

7
the left to right direction in the opposite order in even-
numbered rows.

As to pixels with slits with different inclination angles, the Examiner
relies upon:

Lee et al (Par 0042 line 5-11) discloses a pixel electrode
comprising a slit having inclination angel with respect to a
rubbing direction and (Fig 4A and Par 0049) discloses pixels
(P2) of the plurality of said pixels (P1 and P2) having a second
slit being formed in pixel electrode and the second slit formed
to have an inclination angle opposite to first slit.

Final Act. 6–7.

Figure 4a of Lee shows slits having different inclination angles:

Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

8
FIG. 4A is a plan view illustrating a unit pixel of an LCD device.

Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds, and we agree:

Therefore it would have been obvious and within the realm of
skilled person in the art to modify Onogi et al display device
with the teaching of Lee et al in view of Kwon et al produce
display device wherein the first and second pixels are having
slits with different inclination angel disposed in at least one row
and in at least one column and said slits formed on a pixel
electrodes or counter (i.e. common) electrodes as disclosed to
yield same predictable result.

Ans. 5.

Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings. Id. As
guided by our reviewing court: “‘the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). (Emphasis
added); see also MPEP § 2123.
Although Appellant additionally urges that combining Lee with the
teachings of Onogi would be “unreasonable” (Reply Br. 3), we find Lee at
least evidences that the general concept of slits with opposite inclination
angles was well known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention, and
thus would have produced predictable results when combined with the
Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

9
teachings and suggestions of the primary Onogi, in the manner proffered by
the Examiner. See Ans. 4–5; Lee, Fig. 4A. 3
Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425). In determining obviousness, a reference “must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole.” Id. (emphasis added).
On this record, we are not persuaded that combining the respective
familiar elements of the cited Onogi, Lee, and Kwon references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness regarding Rejection A of representative
independent claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection A of
independent representative claim 1. Grouped claims 2–8, and 11–17 are also
rejected under Rejection A, and were not separately argued. Accordingly,

3 See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“[A]
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).

Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

10
these grouped claims fall with representative independent claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection B of claims 9 and 10 under § 103
Regarding Rejection B of dependent claims 9 and 10, Appellant
argues that “Fujita, which is applied by the Examiner as allegedly disclosing
arrangements of pixels having specific color materials allocated thereto, fails
to overcome the above-noted deficiencies of Onogi, Lee, and Kwon.” App.
Br. 18.
However, we have fully addressed above the specific reasons why we
find Onogi, Lee, and Kwon teach or at least suggest the disputed limitation
as discussed above regarding Rejection A of independent claim 1. Appellant
advances no further separate, substantive arguments regarding the remaining
claims rejected under Rejection B. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness Rejection B of dependent claims 9 and 10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–17, as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the combined teachings and suggestions of the
cited references.

Appeal 2018-008615
Application 14/315,373

11

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 11–17 103 Onogi, Lee, Kwon 1–8, 11–
17

9, 10 103 Onogi, Lee, Kwon,
Fujita
9, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED