Ex Parte Zhou et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 14, 2012

10542910 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

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.
10/542,910 07/20/2005 Guofu Zhou 11543.0024-00000 1807
22852 7590 05/14/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
MANDEVILLE, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte GUOFU ZHOU, MARK THOMAS JOHNSON,
WILLIBRORDUS JURRIANUS DIJKMAN, ROGIER HENDRIKUS
CORTIE, and ALBERT GEVEN
_____________

Appeal 2010-002955
Application 10/542,910
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and MICHAEL
J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002955
Application 10/542,910

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 and 3.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an electrophoretic display panel (App.
Br. 61) also known as electronic paper, e-paper and electronic ink displays.
During a reset operation particles of each picture element are caused to
occupy an extreme position within the picture element that is closest to the
position of the particle corresponding to image information. Id. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An electrophoretic display panel, for displaying a picture
corresponding to image information, comprising:
an electrophoretic medium comprising charged particles;
a plurality of picture elements;
a first and a second electrode associated with each picture
element for receiving a potential difference; and
drive means,
the charged particles being able to occupy a position
being one of extreme positions near the electrodes and
intermediate positions in between the electrodes for displaying
the picture, and
the drive means being arranged for controlling the
potential difference of each picture element

1 Citations to “App. Br.” refer to Appellants’ original Appeal Brief filed
May 1, 2009. Citations to “Corr. App. Br.” are to Appellants’ Corrected
Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2009 which included replacement sections to the
original Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2010-002955
Application 10/542,910

3

to be a reset potential difference having a reset value and
a reset duration for enabling particles to substantially occupy
one of the extreme positions, and subsequently
to be a picture potential difference for enabling the
particles to occupy the position corresponding to the image
information,
wherein
the drive means are further arranged for controlling the
reset potential difference of each picture element of at least a
number of the picture elements to have an additional reset
duration; and the drive means are further arranged for
controlling the reset potential difference of each picture element
to enable particles to occupy the extreme position which is
closest to the position of the particles which corresponds to the
image information.

REFERNCES
Katase US 2002/0005832 Jan. 17, 2002
(filed Jun. 20, 2001)
Zehner et al. US 2003/0137521 Jul. 24, 2003
(filed Nov. 20, 2002)

REJECTIONS2 AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 3 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Katase in view of Zehner.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not

2 The Appellants have cancelled claims 2, 4, and 6-9 and therefore the
previously submitted 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections applied towards these
claims are moot (App. Br. 9).
Appeal 2010-002955
Application 10/542,910

4

to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error
because neither Katase nor Zehner discloses controlling the reset potential
difference of each picture element to enable particles to occupy the extreme
position which is closest to the position of the particles which corresponds to
the image information (Corr. App. Br. 6-9).

ISSUES
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Katase in view of Zehner because the references do not teach or suggest all
the recited features of claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Regarding the above contention, Appellants take the position that the
combination fails to suggest or disclose controlling the reset potential
difference of each picture element to enable particles to occupy the extreme
position which is closest to the position of the particles which corresponds
to the image information (Corr. App. Br. 6-9). In response, the Examiner
points out that “a ‘drive means’ that is ‘arranged’ to ‘enable’ the charged
particles to occupy either or both extreme positions can [also] ‘enable’ the
Appeal 2010-002955
Application 10/542,910

5

charged particles to occupy the extreme position that ‘is closest to the
position of the particles which corresponds to the image information.’” Ans.
10-11. We agree with the Examiner since the closest position must be one
of the two extreme positions disclosed by the prior art. Thus, we find that
the combination of Katase and Zehner renders claim 1 obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Further, as recognized by Appellants, Zehner discloses “a ‘reset’ step
in which all the pixels of the display are driven alternately to their black
and white states.” Corr. App. Br. 8 (citing Zehner ¶ [0150]). Because each
particle is thereby driven to both extreme positions corresponding to the
black and white states then, either at some intermediate stage or in the final
“resetted” stage, each pixel is driven to an extreme position that is closest to
starting position of the particle, i.e., the position corresponding to the image
information that is being erased. Thus, we again conclude that the subject
limitation is disclosed by the combination of Katase and Zehner.
Appellants’ arguments on pages 6-8 of the Reply Brief, that the drive
means are arranged to control the reset potential difference to have an
additional reset duration beyond or in addition to the reset duration, were not
timely presented and are considered waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”)3 (absent a showing of
good cause, the Board is not required to address arguments in the Reply
Brief that could have been presented in the principal Brief). Further, Zehner
discloses a reset duration extending beyond a minimum time required to

3 The “informative” status of this opinion is noted at the following Board
website: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp.
Appeal 2010-002955
Application 10/542,910

6

drive pixels to an extreme position: “problems [of transitioning directly
between gray levels] can be reduced or overcome by driving all pixels of the
display to one of the extreme states for a substantial period before driving
the required pixels to other states.” Zehner ¶ [0017] (emphasis added).
Thus, Zehner teaches driving pixels with a reset potential for some period
beyond the minimum time required to transition to one of the extreme states.
For the reasons presented, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and of claim 3
not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1 and 3 as being obvious over Katase in view of Zehner.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claim 3.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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