Ex Parte CHO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

13727780 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/727,780 12/27/2012
9629 7590 12/21/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SeongHoCHO
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.
106013-5047 4427
EXAMINER
XIE,KWIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
patents@morganlewis.com
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEONGHO CHO, CHEONKEE SHIN, and
KYUNGSEOK KIM
Appeal2018-003530
Application 13/727,780
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003530
Application 13/727,780
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 4---6, and 9--12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to an in-cell touch type liquid crystal display
device and method for driving the same. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An in-cell touch type liquid crystal display (LCD) device,
compnsmg:
an LCD panel including a first touch block and a second
touch block including a plurality of gate lines and common
lines;
a gate driver for applying a high-potential gate driving
signal to the gate lines of the first touch block;
a common voltage generator for supplying common
voltages (V com) of:
a first waveform to common lines of the first touch
block; and
a second waveform to common lines of the second touch
block during a touch period of the second touch block,
concurrently with the high-potential gate driving signal being
applied to the gate lines of the first touch block and the first
waveform being supplied to the common lines of the first touch
block during a display period of the first touch block; and
1 Appellants indicated that LG Display Co., Ltd. is the real party in interest.
(Br. 2).
2
Appeal2018-003530
Application 13/727,780
a touch detection circuit for detecting a touched position
on the liquid crystal (LC) panel through the second waveform
common voltages,
wherein the first waveform common voltage is a direct
current (DC) common voltage corresponding to a pixel voltage
of a pixel provided at the LC panel,
wherein the second waveform common voltage is an
alternating current (AC) common voltage sensed by the touch
block, and
wherein the second waveform common voltage swings at
constant intervals.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chen et al.
(hereinafter "Chen")
Mizuhashi et al.
US 2011/0169747 Al
US 2012/0068961 Al
(hereinafter "Mizuhashi")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
July 14, 2011
Mar. 22, 2012
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a) as being anticipated by Mizuhashi.
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Mizuhashi in view of Chen.
3
Appeal2018-003530
Application 13/727,780
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
With respect to independent claims 1 and 6, Appellants present
arguments to the claims as a group. (Br. 7). Therefore, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and address
Appellants' arguments thereto.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants argue
that in the Mizuhashi reference "the application of the scan (gate) line signal
to the first touch block, which was interpreted in the Office Action as being
the time at which V scan(n-1) goes high at time t2, is never concurrent with
the AC portion of the touch driving signal, i.e., pulse portion Pl, being
applied at time tl ." (Br. 8).
The Examiner clarifies the correspondence of the signals of the
Mizuhashi reference to the claimed signals. (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner
further finds that "the Examiner was not pointing to tl v. t2 as the overlap
period but more specifically tl, when the first waveform Vcom(n-1) and the
AC portion of the second waveform Vcom(k) are concurrently applied."
(Ans. 9).
Appellants have not set forth any other separate argument for
patentability. Moreover, Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to respond
to the Examiner's clarifications set forth in the Examiner's Answer.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's clarification that the
Mizuhashi reference discloses the invention as recited in the language of
independent claim 1, and Appellants' arguments have not shown error in the
Examiner's finding of anticipation of representative independent claim 1.
The Examiner finds that independent claim 6 is anticipated by the
Mizuhashi reference for the same reasons. (Ans. 9). Appellants have not set
4
Appeal2018-003530
Application 13/727,780
forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claim 6.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection for the same
reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We do not consider arguments
that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief so we
deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 9, Appellants present a
general argument relying upon the arguments advanced with respect to
representative claim independent claim 1 and Appellants argue there is "no
overlap at all in Mizuhashi." (Br. 10).
We find that Appellants have not set forth a separate argument for
patentability. Therefore, we sustain the rejection for the reasons set forth
with respect to representative independent claim 1. Additionally, we note
that the Examiner has set forth a finding that there is overlap in the signals.
"(see Fig. 12A and 123C, AC driving signal overlaps with Vscan(n-1) for
majority of lH period)." (Final Act. 5).
With respect to dependent claims 11 and 12, Appellants do not set
forth separate arguments for patentability. (Br. 11 ). Therefore, we sustain
these claims for the reasons advanced with respect to representative
independent claim 1.
Obviousness
With respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5 and
10, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to
independent claim 1. (Br. 11). Therefore, Appellants' have not shown error
in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness, and we
sustain the rejection for the same reasons discussed above.
5
Appeal2018-003530
Application 13/727,780
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12 as
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 5 and 10 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
1, 4--6, and 9--12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6