Myeongsu Kim et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14460129 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 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.
14/460,129 08/14/2014 MyeongSu KIM KORY03566 US 9068
90323 7590 01/02/2020
Innovation Counsel LLP
2890 Zanker Road
Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95134
EXAMINER
SHEN, YUZHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
admin@innovationcounsel.com
docket@innovationcounsel.com
ptomail@innovationcounsel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MYEONGSU KIM and JAEHO CHOI
Appeal 2018-004677
Application 14/460,129
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung
Display Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004677
Application 14/460,129
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a display device and operating method
thereof. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A display device comprising:
a display panel including a plurality of first pixels disposed
in a first display area and a plurality of second pixels disposed in
a second display area, the first display area and the second
display area being surrounded by a non-display area and being
adjacent to each other without an intervening non-display area
disposed therebetween, and the plurality of first pixels and the
plurality of second pixels being connected to a same gate line;
a driving circuit configured to generate first and second
image signals corresponding to the plurality of first and second
pixels;
a first control circuit configured to convert the first image
signals into first data voltages and to provide the first data
voltages to the plurality of first pixels; and
a second control circuit connected electrically to the first
control circuit and configured to convert the second image
signals into second data voltages and to provide the second data
voltages to the plurality of second pixels, wherein the driving
circuit sequentially provides the first image signals
corresponding to the plurality of first pixels to the respective first
control circuit in the order of pixels close to a boundary between
the first display area and the second display area, and the driving
circuit sequentially provides the second image signals
corresponding to the plurality of second pixels to the second
control circuit in the order of pixels close to the boundary.
Appeal 2018-004677
Application 14/460,129
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bae
Choe
Seo
US 2009/0322661 A1
US 2013/0100181 A1
US 2014/0184663 A1
Dec. 31, 2009
Apr. 25, 2013
Jul. 3, 2014

REJECTION
Claims 1–5 and 7–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Choe (US 2013/0100181) in view of Bae (US
2009/0322661). Final Act. 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as unpatentable over Choe
in view of Bae and further in view of Seo. Final Act. 25.
OPINION
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and
we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants
failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not review
those uncontested aspects of the rejection unilaterally. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellants
failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).

Appeal 2018-004677
Application 14/460,129
4
Claims 1–5 and 7–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Choe in
view of Bae.
Appellant argues that Choe is silent about the order of providing the
first image signal and the second image signal from the driving circuit 400 to
the alleged first control circuit (200, 301) and the alleged second control
circuit (300, 301). Appeal Br. 9.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the driving circuit 400 (i.e., host system 400) is
configured to sequentially scan the plurality of first pixels from a pixel that
is disposed immediately adjacent to the boundary to a pixel that is disposed
immediately adjacent to an edge opposite to the boundary. Ans. 29, Final
Act. 4–5 (citing Choe paras. 28–29, 46, and Fig. 1). We agree with the
Examiner that Choe teaches or suggests that the first image signals from the
first control circuit 201 are sequentially supplied to the pixels in the same
sequence as the scanning signals. Ans. 29–30. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the driving circuit 400 is configured to sequentially scan the
plurality of first pixels in an order from a pixel that is disposed immediately
adjacent to the boundary to a pixel that is disposed immediately adjacent to
an edge opposite to the boundary. Ans. 29 (see Choe’s Fig. 1 showing
scanning direction order with arrows).
In other words, we agree with the Examiner, the pixel scanning order
and corresponding image signal transmission in the first display area PNL1
and the second display area PNL2 are in reverse direction as shown in
Choe’s Figures 1 and 6, which are tantamount to Appellant’s own
disclosure.
Appellant in its Reply Brief newly argues that in Choe the sequence in
which the pixels receive the image signal from close the boundary is
Appeal 2018-004677
Application 14/460,129
5
controlled not by the driving circuit providing the image signals in a specific
order, but by the gate lines. Reply Br. 5.
This argument is entitled to no consideration because it was not
presented for the first time in the opening brief. Optivus Technology, Inc. v.
Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument
raised for the first time in the reply brief that could have been raised in the
opening brief is waived); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–
74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the
Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply
brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal).
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the driving
circuit 400 drives the gate lines to provide the image signals in a specific
order. See Final Act. 4–5 and Choe’s Fig. 1. This is tantamount to
Appellant’s Figure 1 wherein the driving circuit 400 drives the first and
second control units which generate the gate control signal driving the gate
lines. See Appellant’s own Spec. paras. 43–52 and Fig. 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5 and 7–18.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Choe
in view of Bae and further in view of Seo.
Appellant does not separately argue claim 6. Accordingly, we also
affirm Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is Affirmed.
Appeal 2018-004677
Application 14/460,129
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5 and 7–
18
103(a) Choe in view of Bae. 1–5 and 7–
18

6 103(a) Choe, in view of Bae
and further in view of
Seo.
6
Overall
Outcome:
1–18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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