11475926 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 2013

11475926 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

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. 11/475,926 06/28/2006 Nam Wook Cho 8733.1678.00 2318 7590 07/22/2013 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Song K. Jung 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER LEE, GENE W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte NAM WOOK CHO and SOO YOUNG YOON ____________________ Appeal 2011-004076 Application 11/475,926 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-19, 24, 26-31, and 34-40. An oral hearing was held July 9, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-004076 Application 11/475,926 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) driving circuit having a gate driver capable of repairing defective stages, and a repairing method thereof (Spec. ¶ [0002]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A gate driver comprising: a shift register including a plurality of stages each having a respective one of a plurality of first output lines; repair line crossing the first output lines, wherein electrical connection of a certain first output line to the repair line is made by welding a cross point between the certain first output line and the repair line; a storage device to store information therein to identify a position of a certain stage of the plurality of stages, wherein the certain stage is a malfunctioning stage; and a repair scan pulse generator to provide repair scan pulses to the repair line based on information stored in the storage device; wherein the repair scan pulse generator includes a clock generator to select one of a plurality of clock pulses based on information stored in the storage device and to output the selected clock pulse; and a signal amplifier to amplify the clock pulse output by the clock generator and to provide the amplified clock pulse as a repair scan pulse to the repair line; wherein the clock generator is arranged to output the clock pulse once each frame. Appeal 2011-004076 Application 11/475,926 3 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 9-13, 25, 26, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Wei (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0085809 A1), Alt (US 6,697,037 B1), Park (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0189583 A1), and Kim (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0110738 A1). The Examiner rejected claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Wei, Alt, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 24, 27, and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Wei, Alt, Park, Kim, and Jung (US 5,815,129). The Examiner rejected claims 16-19 and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Wei, Alt, Jung, and AAPA. The Examiner rejected claims 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Wei, Alt, and Park. ANALYSIS Appellants contend Wei does not disclose a repair line crossing the first output lines and Kim does not cure this deficiency (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants find Wei does not disclose a storage device and Alt does not cure this deficiency (App. Br.10-13; Reply Br. 4-5). That is, Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding that the storage means of Alt and the “line crossing” in Kim can be incorporated into Wei (Ans. 6), is incorrect because Wei does not disclose a repair line crossing first output lines and Kim does not cure this deficiency (App. Br 12-13; Reply Br. 4, 6). Appellants assert neither Kim nor any of the cited references teaches or Appeal 2011-004076 Application 11/475,926 4 suggests a repair line crossing the first output lines as claimed. Although the Examiner states “the mere crossing of lines in [sic] a basic skill well known to any electronics students [sic],” the Examiner also admits Kim’s repair line crossing is for a different purpose, however reconfiguring Wei’s lines so they cross would be an obvious design choice (Ans. 18). The Examiner, though, has not shown that Wei (which does not disclose welding an output line if a malfunctioning stage and a repair line at the crossing point (App. Br. 12)), modified by Kim to include a line crossing, would render Appellants’ invention obvious. That is, Wei does not disclose a repair line crossing an output line and Kim discloses a line crossing a source line repair circuit for a source driver supplying a source driving signal to a disconnected source line of an LCD device (App. Br. 12-13). Thus, for the reasons set forth in Appellants’ Briefs, we agree with Appellants to include a repair line crossing as claimed would constitute impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 12- 13; Reply Br, 4). Additionally, Appellants find Wei does not disclose a storage device and Alt does not cure this deficiency (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 4-5). That is, Wei does not require a memory that stores information on a position of a malfunctioning stage of a shift register. Further, even if Alt’s memory were to be added, Alt does not teach or suggest the information stored in the storage device is used to select one of a plurality of clock pulses from a clock generator in the repair scan pulse generator (Reply Br. 5). The Examiner merely asserts memory storage is well known and because Alt “was cited for the purpose of storing locations of a defect was known and within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. The fact that the reference is oriented towards a different type of defect is a trivial difference” Appeal 2011-004076 Application 11/475,926 5 (Ans. 16). There appears to be no indication by the Examiner as to why Wei, which does not use a storage device, would use a storage device (memory a taught by Alt) as claimed other than it would be “natural and logical to store information about a defect location once a defect is discovered” (Ans. 6). Thus, we fail to see a rational underpinning to use a storage device to identify a position of a malfunctioning stage absent impermissible hindsight. For the above reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim1, independent claims 14 and 38 which recite commensurate limitations, and claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-19, 24, 26-31, 34-37, 39, and 40 dependent therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-19, 24, 26-31 and 34-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED Vsh/llw