Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 201310976785 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte HONG-KWON KIM and KYOUNG-DO KIM _____________ Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, BRYAN F. MOORE, and GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 2 This is a decision on appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 14-18. Claims 6, 9, and 13 have been cancelled. App. Br. 3. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a display device. Spec. ¶ [0002]. Claims 1 and 8 are representative of the invention and reproduced below (bracketed matter and paragraphing added): 1. A light emitting display device, comprising: [a] a display panel including a plurality of pixel circuits arranged in a matrix; [b] a plurality of power supply lines, coupled to the pixel circuits, for applying a first voltage; and [c] a conductive bar having one terminal coupled to a power source for supplying the first voltage, the conductive bar transmitting the first voltage to the power supply lines, [d] wherein the conductive bar is not formed on the display panel and is coupled to a surface of the display panel that is perpendicular to a surface of the display panel on which the pixel circuits are disposed. 8. A light emitting display device, comprising: [a] a display panel including a plurality of scan lines, a plurality of data lines crossing the scan lines, a plurality of pixel circuits coupled to the scan lines and the data lines, and a plurality of power supply lines to apply a first voltage to the pixel circuits; 1 The Real Party-In-Interest is Samsung Mobile Display Co., Ltd. Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 3 [b] a data driver to supply a data voltage to the data lines; and [c] a scan driver to apply a select signal to the scan lines, [d] wherein a power pad coupled to a power to supply the first voltage to transmit the first voltage to the power supply lines is formed on the display panel along the entire of the periphery of the display panel, [e] wherein the power pad is made of conductive polymer. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 4-5.2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (JP 2002-040961). Ans. 6-10. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Yabuuchi (JP 2000- 105387). Ans. 11-14. The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Yoshimura (JP 11-312481). Ans. 14. 2 The rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Advisory Action mailed on Sep. 14, 2009. Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 4 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Appellants argue on pages 9-14 of the Brief that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is in error. This argument presents us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the originally filed Specification failed to demonstrate that the Appellants possessed the limitations of element 1[d] as recited in exemplary independent claim 1? We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the originally filed Specification fails to demonstrate that Appellants possessed the limitations of a conductive bar that is not formed on the display panel and is coupled to a surface of the display panel that is perpendicular to a surface of the display panel, as recited in independent claim 1. Appellants cite to paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0037] and Figs. 4, 5, and 6 of the originally filed Specification as evidence that the Appellants possessed the limitations of element [d]. App. Br. 9-11. Similarly, with regard to dependent claims 16 and 17, Appellants cite to Fig 7 of the originally filed Specification as evidence that the Appellants possessed the limitations of dependent claims 16 and 17. App. Br. 12-14. We concur and will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) - Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10-12 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 6-7), the principal and dispositive issues of whether the Examiner erred Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 5 in rejecting claims 1 and 8 turn on whether Hashimoto describes a “conductive bar…coupled to a surface of the display panel that is perpendicular to a surface of the display panel” (as per claim 1(d), hereinafter “conductive bar/display panel” feature) and a power pad that is made of a “conductive polymer” (as per claim 8(e)). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. With regard to “conductive bar/display panel” feature, Appellants contend that Hashimoto’s bias wiring 13 does not correspond to the claimed conductive bar, and Hashimoto’s picture element 12 does not correspond to the claimed “display panel” (App. Br.14-15; Reply Br. 6) because the “vertical axis of the picture element region 12 [in Hashimoto] is not a plane and cannot be relied upon to teach a surface,” and “the circumference bias wiring 13 is not coupled to a surface of the picture element region 12 that is perpendicular to a surface of the picture element region 12 on which the pixel circuits are disposed.” Id. The Examiner finds that Hashimoto teaches that Taking the inner area (Drawing 1, item 12) to be the display panel, it is clear that the conductive bar (Drawing 1, item 13) of Hashimoto is not directly on the display panel. Further, the claims and the specifications fail[] to define how the “surface of the display” is considered. So taking the broadest reasonable Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 6 interpretation of “surface of the display,” one with reasonably skill in the art can say that the surface of the display is on the vertical axis. Because the conductive bar (Drawing 1, item 13) also runs in the horizontal direction; one can say that there are sections in which the conductive bar is perpendicular to the surface of the display. Ans. 15-16 (citing Hashimoto, Figure 1). Consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 6, 15-16) and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, Hashimoto’s wiring 13 that runs in the horizontal direction and has sections that are perpendicular to the surface of the display is not precluded by the claim language. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With regard to the “conductive polymer” claim limitation, Appellants admit that “it might be inherent that the bias wiring 13 of Hashimoto is conductive.” Appellants’ response to Office Action mailed on July 30, 2008, filed on Sep. 30, 2008, page 8; see Ans. 16. Appellants’ Specification does not provide any definition giving special meaning and thereby limiting the scope of “conductive polymer.” Therefore, the phrase “conductive polymer” is to be given its plain meaning unless inconsistent with the Specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds “polymer” is defined as a compound consisting of large molecules made of a linked series (citing wordnet.princeton.edu). Ans. 16. The Examiner finds the phrase “conductive polymer” to encompass the wiring in Hashimoto because “the wire [in Hashimoto] is [a] large item or molecule which may be seen to consist of smaller sections or molecules which are linked together.” Ans. 16. We find that this construction of the Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 7 “conductive polymer” claim elements to be both reasonable and consistent with the Specification. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969) and In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that during examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification). Appellants have not presented any persuasive evidence to convince us that the Examiner’s interpretation of “conductive polymer” is in error. Given the above construction, the Examiner correctly points out that Hashimoto discloses the “conductive polymer.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8 and claims 4, 7, and 10-12, which are grouped respectively with claims 1 and 8. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Claims 14, and 17-18 Appellants assert that the rejection of claims 14, 17, and 18 is in error for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8. App. Br. 16, 18. As we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 8, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 17, and 18. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Claims 2, 3, 5, and 15-16 The Appellants present several arguments that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 15, and 16. App. Br. 17- 18 and Reply Br. 7-8. The Examiner responds that the cited prior art is not deficient and teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 15, and 16. Ans. 10-14 and 17. We specifically find that the Examiner has articulated Appeal 2010-012155 Application 10/976,785 8 (id.) how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings with some rational underpinning to combine the teachings of the cited prior art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and analysis, and reach the same legal conclusions as in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 10-14 and 17. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 14-18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation