Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2015

12629054 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/629,054 12/02/2009 Pao-Shu Chang
31561 7590 12/10/2015
JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE
7 FLOOR-I, NO. 100
ROOSEVELT ROAD, SECTION 2
TAIPEI, 100
TAIWAN
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.
30833-US-PA 7101
EXAMINER
WONG,KINC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2015 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):
USA@JCIPGROUP.COM.TW
Belinda@JCIPGROUP.COM.TW
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
TJJ\.HTED STi\TES Pi\TENT i\.ND TR .. A.DElVLA.RK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAO-SHU CHANG
Appeal2014-000027
Application 12/629,054
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Nuvoton Technology Corporation as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-000027
Application 12/629,054
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method of driving a field
sequential display in which the scan lines are sequentially driven according
to a scanning sequence during a first time period of the first field and then
sequentially driven in a reverse order during a second time period of the first
field. Spec. ,-r 9.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of driving a field sequential display
apparatus, the method comprising:
sequentially driving a plurality of scan lines of the field
sequential display apparatus during a first period of a first field
wherein the scan lines are sequentially driven according to a
scanning sequence, and the first field is within a first frame;
driving the scan lines sequentially during a second period
of the first field, wherein the scan lines are sequentially driven
according to an opposite sequence, and the opposite sequence is
in the reverse order of the scanning sequence; and
driving the scan lines simultaneously during a third
period of the first field.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
I wabuchi et al. US 2007 /0063959 Al Mar. 22, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Iwabuchui. Final Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal2014-000027
Application 12/629,054
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contention that the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellant's argument
regarding claims 1-16.
The Examiner finds that I wabuchi discloses "sequentially driving a
plurality of scan lines of the field sequential display during a first period of a
first field" and driving the scan lines during a second period of a first field
"in the reverse order of the scanning sequence" of the first period, as
required by claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Iwabuchi i-fi-171, 85-86, 134--137,
148 and 161); Ans. 2-3 (citing Iwabuchi i-fi-123, 71, 76-78, 85-86, 121, 133-
38, 161, and 187-91). The Examiner further finds that "Iwabuchi describes
the output of the opposite scanning sequences in para. [O 161, 0189 and
depicted in figures 38 and 39] where the scan drivers outputs opposite
scanning sequence." Ans. 2.
Appellant argues claims 1 and 8 require "two opposite scanning
sequences respectively in two different periods of the same field of the same
frame." Br. 5 (claim 1 argument); Br. 7 (same argument applies to claim 8).
Appellant further argues that "I wabuchi is silent about such two opposite
scanning sequences used respectively in two different periods of the same
field of the same frame." Br. 5. Instead, Appellant argues, "I wabuchi only
disclose[ s] one scanning sequence instead of two opposite scanning
sequences." Br. 5. According to Appellant, because Iwabuchi does not
disclose every claim limitation, there can be no anticipation of the claims.
Br. 6-7.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that
Iwabuchi discloses driving the scan lines during a second period of a first
3
Appeal2014-000027
Application 12/629,054
field in the reverse order of the scanning sequence used in the first period of
the first field. We have reviewed the sections of the Specification relied on
by the Examiner and do not find any disclosure of driving scan lines during
a second time period in the reverse order of the original sequence. To the
contrary, Iwabuchi discloses using the same sequence multiple times:
Operation of one frame period is described. First, in the
address period Tal, writing operation is performed in the
writing time Tbl of each row from the first to last rows . ...
The row where the writing operation has terminated
sequentially starts the sustain period Tsl. In the sustain period,
a light emitting element of a pixel to which a signal for light
emission is inputted is in a light emission state. Further, the
row where the sustain period Tsl has terminated sequentially
starts signal writing operation of a next sub frame period, and
writing operation is sequentially performed similarly from the
first to the last rows in each signal writing time Tb2.
Iwabuchi i-f 137 (emphasis added).
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments. In
view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 8 and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-16. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious. ").
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16 is
reversed.
4
Appeal2014-000027
Application 12/629,054
Jagr
REVERSED
5