Chi Kang Liu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2019

14800915 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2019)

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.
14/800,915 07/16/2015 Chi Kang Liu 83311-US-PA 9266
31561 7590 12/18/2019
JCIPRNET
P.O. Box 600 Taipei Guting
Taipei City, 10099
TAIWAN
EXAMINER
STEPP JONES, SHAWNA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2019 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):
Belinda@JCIPGROUP.COM
USA@JCIPGROUP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHI KANG LIU and GUO-KIANG HUNG

Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–17.2 Appeal Br. 5. Claim 6
is canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 16, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed July 10, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
November 20, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
March 22, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Mstar Semiconductor, Inc. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a touch
display panel (100) that transmits via its data lines (D1-Dn) a pixel voltage
(F) during a display period (DT) and a touch driving signal (T) during a
distinct and non-overlapping touch control period (TT). Spec. ¶ 27, Fig. 4.
In particular, the touch display panel (100) includes a plurality of data lines
(106) extending vertically (122) along a substrate (112), and a plurality of
touch sensing lines (108) extending horizontally (124) along the substrate
(112) such that the touch sensing lines (108) intersect with the data lines
(106) to form a plurality of touch sensing elements (102). Id. ¶ 24, Figs. 1–3
Figure 4, discussed above and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Figure 4 illustrates a timing diagram of a pixel switch signal transmitted by a
gate line, an integrated signal including a touch control signal and a pixel
voltage signal transmitted by a data line, and a sensing signal sensed by a
touch sensing line. Id. ¶11.
Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915

3
Of the rejected claims, claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A touch display panel, comprising:
a first substrate;
a plurality of data lines, disposed above the first
substrate, extending along a first direction;
a plurality of touch sensing lines, disposed above the first
substrate, extending along a second direction and intersecting
with the plurality of data lines to form a plurality of touch
sensing elements;
a plurality of gate lines, disposed above the first
substrate, extending along the second direction and intersecting
with the data lines; and
a plurality of thin-film transistors (TFTs ), disposed
above the first substrate, disposed adjacently to intersections of
the gate lines and the data lines, each of the TFTs comprising a
gate, a source and a drain, each of the gates electrically
connected to one of the adjacent gate lines, the sources
electrically connected to one of the adjacent data lines, wherein
the data lines transmit at least one pixel voltage signal in a
display period, and transmit at least one touch driving signal in
a touch control period, and the display period does not overlap
with the touch control period.

Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references 3
Name Number Filed Published
Kim
(hereinafter
“Kim ‘214”)
US 2012/0075214 A1 Sept. 7, 2011 Mar. 29, 2012
Kim et al.
(hereinafter
“Kim ‘539”)
US 2014/0168539 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 June 19, 2014
Kim
(hereinafter
“Kim ‘590”)
US 9,229,590 B2 Dec. 19, 2012 Jan. 5, 2016

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1–3, 7–11 and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kim’539 and Kim’590. Final
Act. 4–10.4
2. Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kim’539, Kim’590, and Kim’214.
Final Act. 10–11.

V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Kim’539 and Kim’590 teaches or suggests forming touch

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 Claim 14 is inadvertently omitted from the statement of the rejection.
Final Act. 4. However, it is discussed in the body of the rejection. Id. at 10.
Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915

5
sensing elements by intersecting data lines and touch sensing lines, as
recited independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant argues
that Kim’539 discloses forming touch sensing elements by intersecting touch
sensing lines (Rx) with touch driving electrodes (Tx), as opposed to Rx lines
intersecting the data lines (Dx). Id. (citing Kim’539 ¶ 36, Fig. 1).
According to Appellant, Kim’539 also shows “that the data lines Dl-Dn and
gate lines Gl-Gm are intersected with the thin film transistors.” Id. However,
Appellant submits Kim’539 does not teach Dn intersects with Rx or Gx. Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As a
preliminary matter, we note that the Examiner relies upon Kim’539 for the
disputed limitation as follows:
Kim ’539 teaches a touch display panel (Title: Touch Sensor
Integrated Type Display), comprising: a first substrate (Figure 4b;
SU81); a plurality of data lines, disposed above the first substrate,
extending along a first direction (Figure 48; reference D which is a
side depiction of the plurality of data lines D1-Dn extending along
a first direction of Figure 1 disposed above the first substrate); a
plurality of touch sensing lines, disposed above the first substrate,
extending along a second direction and intersecting with the plurality
of data lines to form a plurality of touch sensing elements (Figure 4A,
reference RX which is a side depiction of the plurality of touch
sensing lines extending along a second direction of Figure 1
and intersecting with a plurality data lines to form a plurality of
touch sensing elements disposed above the first substrate); a
plurality of gate lines, disposed above the first substrate, extending
along the second direction and intersecting with the data lines (Figure
48, reference G which is a side depiction of the plurality of gate
lines extending along the second direction of Figure 1 and
intersecting with the data lines disposed above the first
substrate)[.]
Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915

6
Further, we note the Examiner did not address in the Answer
Appellant’s argument summarized above at pages 4–5. Although figure 1 of
Kim ‘539 depicts the data lines (Dx) extending vertically along a substrate
and the gate lines (Gx)/touch sensing lines (Rx) extending horizontally along
the thin film transistor, it is unclear from the cited portions of Kim’539, and
the Examiner has not shown that the thin film transistor and the data lines
are on the same layer. As persuasively argued by Appellant, Kim ’539
discloses that the gate lines (Gx) and the touch sensing lines (Rx) intersect to
form the touch sensing electrodes (Tx). Appeal Br. 11. Even though the
data lines (Dx) do communicate with the gate lines and touch sensing lines,
the Examiner’s finding that the data lines (Dx) intersect with the gate lines
(Gx) or the touch sending lines (Tx) is at best speculative, and is not
supported by the record before us. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant
that the proposed combination falls short of teaching or suggesting the
disputed limitation.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1, we need not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10. Likewise, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 2–5 and 7–17, which recite the disputed limitation.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–5 and
7–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2018-005811
Application 14/800,915

7

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–11, 14–17 103 Kim’539, Kim’590 1–3, 7–11, 14–17
4, 5, 12, 13 103 Kim’539, Kim’590, Kim’214 4, 5, 12, 13
Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–17

REVERSED