Ex Parte Yamashita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13765422 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/765,422 02/12/2013
134795 7590 08/01/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Junichi Yamashita
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.
880210-3971-USOl 7383
EXAMINER
BODDIE, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
sbj ames@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNICHI YAMASHITA and KATSUHIDE UCHINO
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/7 65,422
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-6, 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.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is generally directed to "a display in which
light-emitting devices provided on a pixel-by-pixel basis are driven by
current for image displaying, and a method for driving the display." Spec. 1.
More "[ s Jpecifically, the present invention relates to a drive system for a so-
called active-matrix display in which the amount of current applied to a
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
light-emitting device, such as an organic EL device, is controlled by
insulated-gate field effect transistors provided in each pixel circuit."
Spec. 1. The power feed line can selectively provide low, intermediate, or
high potential. In some embodiments the voltage between a pair of current
terminals of the drive transistor is at most 12 volts "during a period within
which the intermediate potential is provided to the drive transistor from the
power feed line," Spec. 25, and the voltage between the power feed line and
the cathode potential line ( e.g., ground) is at least 15 volts "during at least a
light-emission period of the" LED, see Spec. 24: 10-14.
Claim 3 is reproduced below:
3. A pixel circuit, comprising:
a drive transistor; and
a light-emitting device,
the drive transistor and the light emitting device being
disposed within a current path between a power feed line and a
cathode potential line, the power feed line selectively providing
each of a low potential, an intermediate potential and a high
potential, the drive transistor being directly connected to the
power feed line,
the pixel circuit being configured such that a voltage
between the power feed line and the cathode potential line is 15V
or higher during at least a light-emission period of the light-
emitting device, and
such that a voltage between a pair of current terminals of
the drive transistor does not exceed 12 V during a period within
which the intermediate potential is provided to the drive
transistor from the power feed line.
REJECTION
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Ono (US 2004/0174354 Al; Sept. 9, 2004), Koyama (US 2002/0047568
2
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
Al; Apr. 25, 2002), and Noguchi (US 2005/0212787 Al; Sept. 29, 2005).
Final Act. 2--4.
ANALYSIS
We have only considered those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue claims 1-6 as a group. See App. Br. 8-
13; Reply Br. 2-5. We select claim 3 as representative of the group. See 37
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
The Examiner finds the combination of Ono, Kayama, and Noguchi
teaches or suggests every limitation recited in claim 3. Final Act. 2--4 ( citing
Ono ,r,r 6-8, 74, 77, 83, Figs. 8-9, 20; Koyama ,r 95; Noguchi ,r 149). The
Examiner finds (1) Kayama teaches "a voltage between the power feed line
and the cathode potential line is 15V or higher during at least a light-
emission period of the light-emitting device," (2) Noguchi teaches "a voltage
between a pair of current terminals of the drive transistor does not exceed 12
V" during a correction voltage period of the pixel circuit, and (3) Ono
teaches the remaining limitations of claim 3. Id. The Examiner also
provides a rationale for combining the identified teachings with each other.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants first argue the Examiner admits Ono does not disclose "a
voltage between a pair of current terminals of the drive transistor does not
exceed 12 V" ("the 12V limitation") recited in claim 1, but ignores the fact
that the claim recites the 12V limitation occurs during a particular period
(i.e., "a period within which the intermediate potential is directly supplied to
one of the pair of current terminals"). App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.
3
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
Appellants contend the claim limitations are met only if the combined
teachings demonstrate the 12V limitation occurring during the particularly
recited period.
The Examiner finds the combination of Ono and Noguchi teaches or
suggests the 12V limitation occurring during a threshold correction period of
the pixel circuit and concludes it would have been obvious to use the 12V
power supply taught by the combination during any time period because the
combination would have been merely the predictable result of combining
familiar elements using known methods. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3--4; KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). We agree with the
Examiner. Appellants have not demonstrated sufficiently that the
Examiner's proposed combination is more than simply the predictable result
of combining Ono and Noguchi's known elements.
Moreover, we disagree with Appellants' argument that "[i]f,
according to the combined teachings of the cited references, the claimed
voltage difference occurs at a time when an intermediate potential is not
supplied to one of the current terminals, this claim is not met." See App.
Br. 9. On the contrary, we see nothing in the claims that precludes the 12V
limitation from occurring at times other than during the recited period, as
long as it would have been obvious from the combined teachings that the
12V limitation occurs during the recited period as well.
Appellants also argue incorporating Koyama's teaching of a "voltage
between the power feed line and the cathode potential lines being 15V or
higher during at least a light-emission period of the light-emitting device"
("the 15V limitation") with Ono's teachings would result in power feed lines
that do not "provide each of a low potential, an intermediate potential, and a
4
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
high potential as claimed." App. Br. 9--10. Appellants argue the proposed
combination would result in replacing Ono's power supply line voltage with
Koyama's power supply line voltage, which supplies only one of two values,
such that there is no intermediate potential, as claimed. App. Br. 10. 1
Similarly, Appellants contend replacing the Ono-Koyama power
supply with Noguchi's power supply would result in not applying the
teachings of Koyama. App. Br. 11. 2 Appellants then argue the proposed
combination of Ono, Koyama, and Noguchi would result in using only
Noguchi's power supply and, therefore, would include neither the 15V
limitation nor power feed lines that supply three different potentials, as
claimed. App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner explains, and we agree, that the proposed combination
involves incorporating Koayama's "I5V voltages specifically during a light-
emission period" and Ono's "power supply of 12V during threshold voltage
correction" into Ono's system, but not "to completely replace or alter any
other functionality of' Ono. Ans. 5. Appellants respond that their
arguments address the combination, not the references individually and
1 Appellants appear to confuse the references of Ono and Koyama, as shown
in the cited Figures and elements in the drawings. For example, Appellants
refer to elements by reference numerals 900-902 in Ono's Figure IA. App.
Br. 10. Ono, however, has a Figure 1, but no Figure IA and, moreover,
Ono's Figure 1 refers to the depicted elements using reference numerals 1-
12. This error is harmless, however, as Appellants' intent is clear, and the
error does not render the argument incomprehensible.
2 Appellants again refer to Ono when they appear to mean Koyama.
However, Appellants' ultimate contention is that the relevant teachings from
both Ono and Koyama would not be included in the proposed combination
of Ono, Koyama, and Noguchi. Thus, this error is harmless as well.
5
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
simply assert "[t]he Examiner makes no attempt to state how Ono and
Noguchi are to be combined." Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also incorrectly characterize the Examiner's findings and
conclusions, asserting the "Examiner has not disagreed that the proposed
combination is the physical combination of Ono and Koyama, and has not
addressed Appellant's argument that the combined teachings 'would no
longer include a power feed line that selectively provides each of a low
potential, an intermediate potential, and a high potential."' Reply Br. 4.
On the contrary, the Examiner explains the proposed combination
involves incorporating Koyama and Noguchi's teachings without replacing
or altering Ono's functionality. In other words, the Examiner is not
proposing replacing the entirety of Ono's power feed lines or power supply,
but rather replacing Ono's voltages disclosed during certain time periods in
Ono's system, which includes a power feed line selectively providing three
different potentials, with Koyama and Noguchi's disclosed voltages.
Moreover, contrary to Appellants' implication that the Examiner has
not demonstrated the combination of Ono and Noguchi teaches this
limitation, see Reply Br. 3 ("one cannot show obviousness by defending
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references"), we find the Examiner provided a reasonable rationale for
combining the Ono and Noguchi's identified teachings. See Final Act. 4--5.
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that the proposed combination of
Koyama and Ono is impossible because Ono discloses using a negative
voltage and incorporating Koyama's teaching regarding the 15V limitation
"at this time period would clearly sacrifice the operation of the device."
6
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants provide no further explanation why or how
modifying Ono as proposed would "sacrifice the operation of the device."
Furthermore, we note Appellants' arguments with respect to the 15V
limitation are not commensurate with the scope of claims 1, 2, and 6, which
do not recite the 15V limitation.
Finally, Appellants argue the proposed combination fails to teach the
12V limitation because Noguchi discloses a power source potential of 12V,
but provides insufficient information to determine any particular value of the
"voltage [drop] between a pair of current terminals of the drive transistor,"
let alone whether that voltage "does not exceed 12 V," as recited in claim 3.
App. Br. 12. Appellants' assert VSS may be negative and larger in value
than the voltage drop across EL 16, resulting in a voltage drop across
transistor 18 's current terminals of more than 12 V.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combined teachings need
merely suggest, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the recited features.
Ans. 6. Given that the voltages may take on various values, we agree with
the Examiner that Noguchi at least suggests a VSS voltage that is positive
and, therefore, a voltage drop across transistor 18 's terminals that does not
exceed 12V.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 3 and claims 1, 2, and 4--6, which were not argued
separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2017-011391
Application 13/765,422
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8