Ex Parte Chu Ke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2019

14523956 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/523,956 10/27/2014
31561
JCIPRNET
7590
P.O. Box 600 Taipei Guting
Taipei City, 10099
TAIWAN
03/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hui Chu Ke
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.
52731-US-PA 4222
EXAMINER
ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2019 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):
USA@JCIPGROUP.COM
Belinda@JCIPGROUP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI CHU KE 1
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and 7, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. App. Br. 1. 2 Claim 6 is canceled, and claims 8-16 have
been withdrawn. Id. at 13-15 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant lists Au Optronics Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2018 ("App. Br.") 1.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned appeal brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
November 17, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 2,
2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed June 27, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
THE PRESENT APPLICATION
The present application is directed to a pixel array for a display panel.
Spec ,r 1. Each pixel in the display panel is composed of individual
subpixels that produce red, green, blue, or another color. Id. ,r,r 3, 23, 29.
The Specification's Background of the Invention explains that it is desirable
to reduce the number of sub-pixels to increase the aperture ratio of the
pixels, which is a measure of the ratio of the transparent area to the total
area. Id. ,r 3. The Background further explains that when the number of
sub-pixels is reduced in prior art display panels, the resolution of the display
is reduced. Id. at ,r 4. Therefore, the Specification explains, it would be
beneficial to have a display with high resolution and a high aperture ratio.
Id.
To address this problem, Appellant proposes a number of different
arrangements for subpixels in a pixel array in which the subpixels are not the
same size. One embodiment is shown in Fig. 2:
OL1 DL2 DLJ DL4 DL5
FIG. 2
N\:J 1tr--1 I ! G
I
I
I
I
I
100
Fig. 2 shows one of many repeating units 100 in a display. Each
repeating unit 100 includes three first color sub-pixels R (red), four second
2
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
color sub-pixels G (green), and three third color sub-pixels B (blue). Id.
,r 23. The repeating unit includes two scan lines, SL 1 and SL2, and five data
lines, DL1-DL5, and the unit is arranged in an array of 2x5 (two rows, with
five pixels per row).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. (Previously presented) A pixel array,
comprising a plurality of repeating units, wherein
each repeating unit comprises:
three first color sub-pixels, wherein a size of
one of the first color sub-pixels is greater than a
size of each of the other two first color sub-pixels;
four second color sub-pixels, wherein sizes
of each of the four second color sub-pixels are the
same;
three third color sub-pixels, wherein a size
of one of the third color sub-pixels is greater than a
size of each of the other two third color sub-pixels;
and
two scan lines and five data lines, wherein
the first color sub-pixels, the second color sub-
pixels, and the third color sub-pixels are arranged
in an array of 2x5.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chen (TW 2008/23520; published June 1, 2008) and Kim
(US 2008/0252558; published October 16, 2008).
3
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
The Examiner relies primarily on Figures 6 and 7 of Chen; Figure 7 is
reproduced here:
Figure 7 of Chen
The Examiner finds that Figure 7 of Chen teaches a plurality of
repeating units, each of which includes (1) three first-color sub-pixels (the
"R" sub-pixels in Fig. 7), one of which is larger than the other two; (2) three
third-color sub-pixels (the "B" pixels in Fig. 7), one of which is larger than
the other two; and (3) two scan lines (G2 and G3 in Fig. 6). Final Act. 5---6,
citing Chen Figs. 6, 7. As shown in Figure 7, each repeating unit has a first
row of six sub-pixels and a second row of three sub-pixels. Chen, Fig. 7,
cited in Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner further finds that Chen does not
expressly disclose (1) the repeating units including four second color sub
pixels all of the same size; (2) five data lines; and (3) the first, second and
third color sub-pixels being arranged in a 2x5 array. Final Act. 6.
4
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
The Examiner relies on Kim for teaching these claim elements that are
missing from Chen. Id. at 6 ( citing Kim Figs. 4A, 4B; ,r,r 75-83). Figure 4A
of Kim, reproduced below, is a schematic illustration of a pixel pattern of a
color display. Kim ,r 28.
FTG. 4A
710 720 730
) ) )
I / /
\
)
74ii
Figure 4A of Kim
The Examiner finds that Kim's Figure 4A depicts a 2x5 array 700 of
colored subpixels 710, 720, 730, 740. Final Act. 6. The Examiner notes that
Kim Figure 4A teaches a four-color array of sub-pixels (R, G, B, and W),
and not a three-color array, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-3, 6, citing
Kim Fig. 4A. The Examiner finds that Kim's four green (G) sub-pixels
(including sub-pixel 720) of the same size teaches or suggests four second
color sub-pixels wherein the sizes of each of the four second color sub-
pixels are the same. Final Act. 6. The Examiner further finds that Kim
teaches five data lines and an array of 2x5 sub-pixels. Id. at 6. The
Examiner found that it would have been obvious to modify Chen "by
combining the repeating unit of Kim in order to provide[] a color display
5
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
apparatus in which a pixel pattern is readily and efficiently realized and
driven, thereby providing a high luminance property." Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to establish a motivation to
combine Chen and Kim in order to achieve the invention of claim 1. App.
Br. 8-9; Rep. Br. 4-5. Appellant argues that the Examiner's findings were
deficient because the Examiner merely stated that "Chen could be modified
with the teaching of Kim (e.g. FIG 4A and FIG. 4B of Kim) for arriving [at]
the claimed feature ' ... two scan lines and five data lines, wherein the first
color sub-pixels, the second color sub-pixels, and the third color sub-pixels
are arranged in an array of 2x5' as recited in claim 1 without providing
any justification of such modification .... " Rep. Br. 5 (emphasis in
original). Appellant additionally argued that Chen teaches away from
modifying Chen in a manner that suggests the limitations of claim 1 and that
the proposed modification would destroy the intended purpose of Chen.
App. Br. 5-10; Rep. Br. 4-5. 3
3 Appellant relies on untranslated portions of Chen's Specification (which is
in Chinese) to argue that Chen teaches away from the proposed combination
and that the proposed modification of Chen would be inconsistent with the
reference's intended purpose. App. Br. 5-6; Rep. Br. 2-3. Because no
certified translation of the referenced portions of the Chen specification has
been provided, we consider these assertions to be unsupported attorney
argument, so we do not rely on them in this opinion. See Ex Parte Schade,
Appeal No. 2001-1241, 2003 WL 23013232, *5 (BPAI 2008) (unpublished)
(refusing to consider untranslated German language reference). Attorney
argument cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence.
See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
6
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to establish how
the proposed combination of Chen with Kim would result in the claimed
invention, and has failed to provide a sufficient reason or motivation why a
person of ordinary skill would have make such a combination at the time of
the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires ten sub-pixels in the repeating unit - "three first
color sub-pixels," "four second color sub-pixels," and "three third color sub-
pixels." These ten pixels fill out the ten spaces in a 2x5 sub-pixel array.
Kim, however, teaches the use of four different color sub-pixels - R, B, G,
and W. But if four different color sub-pixels were included in the array of
claim 1, either an array larger than 2x5 would be required, or one or more of
the sub-pixels expressly recited in claim 1 would have to be removed.
Neither option is consistent with the language of claim 1. The Examiner
therefore fails to establish how the proposed combination of Chen and Kim
would teach this limitation of claim 1, or what the motivation would be for
making such a combination.
The Examiner also suggests that the scope of claim 1 may encompass
both 2x5 arrays made up of sub-pixels of more than three colors and sub-
pixel arrays that are larger than 2x5. Final Act. 3. We disagree that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language reciting a "wherein
the first color sub-pixels, the second color sub-pixels, and the third color
sub-pixels are arranged in an array of 2x5" would encompass those ten
pixels being included only in an array larger than 2x5.
The claim language does not recite that the enumerated sub-pixels
could be organized into a grouping larger than a 2x5 array. For example,
7
Appeal2018-007096
Application 14/523,956
claim 1 does not set forth that the sub-pixels are arranged into at least two
rows,five or more columns, or an array of 2x5 or greater. Appellant's
Specification also distinguishes between a 2x5 array and arrays of other
sizes. For example, the Specification states that the sub-pixels "are arranged
in an array of 2x5" when describing the ten-sub-pixel embodiment of Fig. 2.
Spec. ,r 24; Fig. 2. But the Specification describes the twelve-sub-pixel
embodiment of Fig. 9 as being "arranged in an array of 2x6," not an array of
2x5. Id. ,I 37; Fig. 9.
To summarize, the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how Chen
and Kim's teachings are being combined to teach or suggest the limitation of
claim 1 requiring that ten first, second and third color sub-pixels "are
arranged in an array of 2x5," as properly construed.
Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to establish that the claims are
unpatentable based on obviousness. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2--4 and 7, which depend from
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7 is reversed.
REVERSED
8