Ex Parte Hiroki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11710529 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111710,529 02/26/2007
31780 7590 03/15/2016
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P,C,
3975 Fair Ridge Drive
Suite 20 North
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masaaki Hiraki
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.
0756-7955 4455
EXAMINER
SHAH,PRIYANKJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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 MASAAKI HIROKI
Appeal2014-002960 1
Application 11/710,529
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-22, 35, and 36.
App. Br. 3. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 23-34 have been canceled. Id.
at 15-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Semiconductor Energy
Laboratory Co, Ltd. App. Br. 3. An oral hearing was held in this appeal on
March 8, 2016.
Appeal2014-002960
Application 11/710,529
Appellant's Invention
Appellant invents a projection type display device including a signal
processing circuit (106) that modifies an input video signal (120) to generate
two symmetric video signals (129, 130) with opposing polarity. Each of the
generated video signals contains the input video signal (120) to thereby drive
the source circuit driver (105) of a liquid crystal display (103). Spec. 16:5-
19, Figs. 1, 4.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A projection type display device comprising a screen
and a panel,
the panel comprising:
a first pixel comprising a first switching element, wherein the
first switching element is electrically connected to a scan line and a
first signal line,
a second pixel comprising a second switching element, wherein
the second switching element is electrically connected to the scan line
and a second signal line, and \'I/herein the first pixel and the second
pixel are adjacent to each other,
a gate driver electrically connected to the scan line,
a source driver electrically connected to the first signal line and
the second signal line, and
a signal processing circuit electrically connected to the source
driver,
wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to modify
original signals to a pair of first signals and second signals each
including the original signals and to provide the source driver with a
pair of video signals comprising the video signals with a first polarity
and the video signals with a second polarity, and
wherein the source driver is configured to sample one of the
first video signals with the first polarity and apply to the first signal
line, and to sample one of the second video signals with the second
polarity and apply to the second signal line.
2
Appeal2014-002960
Application 11/710,529
Enomoto et al.
Shimada et al.
Koyama
Zhang et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
us 5,796,379
us 5,801,673
us 5,940,058
us 5,956,009
Rejections on Appeal
Aug. 18, 1998
Sept. 1, 1998
Aug. 17, 1999
Sept. 21, 19999
Appellant requests review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-14, 22, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Koyama.
Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Koyama and Enomoto.
Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Koyama and Zhang.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Enomoto, and Zhang.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Enomoto, and Shimada.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding Koyama discloses modifYing original signals to generate a pair of
first signals and second signals, each including the original signals, as
recited in independent claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-002960
Application 11/710,529
Appellant argues Koyama does not describe the disputed limitations
emphasized above. App. Br. 8-11, Reply Br. 2-7. In particular, Appellant
argues although Koyama discloses a signal processing circuit that modifies
original signals DIN (al, a2 ... a8) to generate a pair of signals Dl(al, a3, a5,
a7) and D2 (a2, a4, a6, a8), each of the generated signals does not include
the original signals, which are DIN (al, a2 .. a8). App. Br. 8 (citing Koyama
7:49---60). In response, the Examiner finds Koyama's disclosure describes
disputed claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
because generated signals DI (al, a2, a3, a5, a7) and D2 (a2, a4, a6, a8)
include elements of the original signals DIN (al, a2, .. a8). Ans. 20-21
(citing Koyama, Figs. 7 A, 7B, 8). We do not agree with the Examiner.
At the outset, we note Appellant correctly argues that because the
disputed limitation requires that each of the generated signals includes the
original signals entirely, they must include the same content. App. Br. 10.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant the cited disclosure of Koyama
describes, at best, that the combination of DI and D2 adds up to DIN. Id.
However, DI is merely a portion of the original signals and D2 is merely
another portion of the original signals. Id. Because the contents of DI and
D2 are different portions of the original signals, and they do not include the
original input signals DIN in its entirety, they do not describe the first and
second signals, as recited in the disputed limitation. Because Appellant has
shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not
reach Appellant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, Appellant has shown
the Examiner erred in finding Koyama anticipates claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-002960
Application 11/710,529
Because claims 5-8, 12-14, 22, 35, and 36 also recite commensurate
limitations to those of claim 1 discussed above, we similarly find error in the
Examiner's rejections of those claims.
Obviousness Rejections
Because none of Enomoto, Zhang, or Shimada cures the noted
deficiencies of Koyama discussed above, we therefore do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections for the foregoing reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-22, 35, and 36 as set forth above.
REVERSED
5