Ex Parte Choi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

13495805 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017)

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.
13/495,805 06/13/2012 Wonjae Choi P13445US1 /APPL:0315 2323
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
11/15/2017 EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WONJAE CHOI, CHIA-CHING CHU, and CHUN-YAO HUANG
Appeal 2017-000957
Application 13/495,805
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—8 and 10—20, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. App. Br. 3. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claims App’x. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Apple, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000957
Application 13/495,805
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for discharging pixels of a liquid crystal display (LCD)
before the LCD is turned off so as to decrease image artifacts (e.g.,
flickering or image sticking) on the LCD after the display is turned on again.
Spec. 112, 6, Fig. 9.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for discharging a pixel of an electronic display
to be turned off comprising:
when an external power supply is removed from the
display:
supplying a data signal of ground to a pixel electrode of
the pixel, wherein the pixel is in an activated state;
controlling a common electrode voltage of the pixel
toward ground gradually over a first time, wherein either or
both of the common electrode voltage and the data signal of the
pixel electrode are a voltage other than ground immediately
before the external power supply is removed from the display;
and
controlling an activation signal toward ground gradually
over a second time, wherein the activation signal reaches an
activation threshold voltage of the pixel to cause the pixel to
exit the activation state after the common electrode voltage of
the pixel and the data signal on the pixel electrode have reached
ground.
Rejections on Appeal2
Claims 1, 3—8, 10, and 12—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamato (US 2010/0156883
2 The Examiner withdraws the indefiniteness rejection previously entered
against claims 1, 10, and 15. Ans. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-000957
Application 13/495,805
Al, pub. June 24, 2010) and Toyozawa (US 2007/0290968 Al, pub.
Dec. 20, 2007). Final Act. 7-19.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yamato, Toyozawa, and Saito (US
2012/0242562 Al, pub. Sept. 27, 2012). Final Act. 19-22.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—16, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—8.3 We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 3—22; Ans. 3—20. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
First, Appellants argue that the combination of Yamato and Toyozawa
does not teach or suggest “a common electrode voltage and a data signal at a
voltage other than ground immediately before an external power supply is
removed.” App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue “the residual
charges are clearly discharged prior to the power source off advance notice
signal, and therefore both the common voltage and the pixel voltage are at
ground immediately before an external power supply is removed.” Id. at
10—11 (citing Yamato Fig. 7). According to Appellants, the Examiner
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 16, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
October 24, 2016), and the Answer (mailed August 22, 2016) (“Ans.”) for
the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-000957
Application 13/495,805
incorrectly interpreted the claimed “common electrode voltage,” and thereby
improperly mapped it to Yamato’s “source/common reference voltage,” as
opposed to Yamato’s “common voltage.” Id. at 11—12. This argument is
not persuasive.
At the outset, we note Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the
specific findings made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Answer.
In particular, the Examiner explained in extensive detail how Vcom source,
depicted in Figures 4—9 of the drawings is not defined in Appellants’
Specification. Ans. 3—7 (citing Spec. 36, 46, 55—57). According to the
Examiner, Vcom source is representative of the voltage applied to the pixel
prior to removing the external power, as well as the charge stored in the
pixel after power is removed. Id. at 5. The Examiner thus maps the claimed
“data signal” and “common electrode voltage” to the “source voltage” and
the “source/common reference voltage” respectively, in Figure 6 of Yamato.
Ans. 14. Likewise, the Examiner maps Vcom signal in Appellants’ Figure 9
to the “pixel voltage” in Figure 6 of Yamato. Id. at 15. The Examiner
further finds that while a review of Figure 7 of Yamato indicates that the
residual power is discharged prior the power source being turned off, Figure
6 of Yamato shows otherwise. Id. at 14. According to the Examiner, Figure
6 of Yamato indicates that just prior to shutting off the external power
source (Pixel voltage), the source voltage (data signal) and source/common
reference voltage (common electrode voltage) are nonzero. Id. As noted
above, although Appellants argue the mapping of the cited claimed elements
with respect to the embodiment in Figure 7 of Yamato, while discussing
Figure 7 Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the embodiment of
Figure 6 to which the Examiner maps the disputed claim elements.
4
Appeal 2017-000957
Application 13/495,805
Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s particular
mapping of the cited claim elements.
Second, Appellants argue that the proposed combination of references
does not teach or suggest “an activation signal reaching an activation
threshold voltage after the common electrode voltage and the data signal
have reached ground” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. According to
Appellants, the “gate voltage” disclosed in Figure 6 of Yamato does not
teach the activation signal because the “gate voltage” is deactivated or below
the threshold voltage prior to the “common voltage” and the “source
voltage” reaching ground. Id. This argument is not persuasive.
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the specific finding made
by the Examiner. Although, here, Appellants’ argument is directed to the
embodiment in Figure 6 of Yamato relied upon by the Examiner, Appellants
have not addressed the Examiner’s specific mapping. In particular, the
Examiner maps the claimed “activation signal” to the “Gate LOW voltage”
depicted in Figure 6 of Yamato. Ans. 15. According to the Examiner, as
depicted in Figure 6 of Yamato, the “Gate LOW voltage” (activation signal)
is high, and does not reach ground until after the Source/common reference
voltage (common electrode voltage) and the “source voltage” (data signal)
have reached ground. Id. at 15—16. Further, the Examiner finds Yamato’s
disclosure of “discharging the pixels by controlling the discharge time of the
gate high, gate low, and common reference voltage lines” teaches or
suggests the claim limitation of “adjusting the discharge time in relation to a
gate voltage reaching a threshold level.” Id. at 16. According to the
Examiner, because the time required to discharge the residual electric charge
can be arbitrarily adjusted with the resistance of the resistor 14b, one of
5
Appeal 2017-000957
Application 13/495,805
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the discharge
voltage to a desired threshold level by varying the resistance. Id. at 16—17.
While Appellants do not dispute that the resistor can be varied to adjust the
threshold voltage, Appellants dispute that the “gate voltage” itself satisfies
the requirement of the claimed “activation signal.” App. Br. 12—13. As
noted above, the Examiner relies upon Yamato’s “Gate LOW voltage” (and
not the “gate voltage”) to teach the “activation signal.” Because Appellants’
argument is directed to a finding not relied upon by the Examiner,
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection at hand. For these
same reasons, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that Yamato is
improperly combined with Toyozawa. Id. at 13—14.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded or error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2—8 and 10—20, Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-8 and 10-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6