Ex Parte Hsu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11198141 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/198,141 08/05/2005 Ying Hao Hsu TOP.0002US 8254
21906 7590 09/27/2013
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
SIM, YONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2013 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 YING HAO HSU, HUNG-YU LIN, JIA-HUANG LEE,
WANG-YANG LI, and CHE-MING HSU
____________

Appeal 2011-000203
Application 11/198,141
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–11, 13–19, and 21–27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 12 and 20 have been cancelled. App. Br. 1.
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-000203
Application 11/198,141

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for driving a
pixel signal. Spec. ¶¶ 0033, 0036.

Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A method of controlling a pixel signal for a pixel of a
display, the pixel signal having an initial voltage during a frame
period, the method comprising:
driving the pixel signal from the initial voltage to an
intermediate voltage larger than the initial voltage during the
frame period;
maintaining the pixel signal at the intermediate voltage
for a time interval; and
after the time interval, driving the pixel signal from the
intermediate voltage to a target voltage larger than the
intermediate voltage during the frame period.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–10, 13–17, 19, 21, and 23–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Song (U.S. 2004/0196274 A1) and Ham
(U.S. 2003/0048246 A1). Ans. 4-18.
Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Song, Ham, and Suzuki (U.S. 2003/0156092 A1). Ans.
18-22.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Song, Ham, and Sheu (U.S. 2004/0252079 A1). Ans. 22-
24.

Appeal 2011-000203
Application 11/198,141

3
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Song
and Ham teaches “driving the pixel signal from the initial voltage to an
intermediate voltage larger than the initial voltage during the frame
period . . . [and] driving the pixel signal from the intermediate voltage to a
target voltage larger than the intermediate voltage during the frame period,”
as recited in independent claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in determining that the claimed invention
would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention on the bases of: (1) there is no motivation to modify Song to
combine the technique of Ham with the system of Song and (2) each of Song
and Ham teach away from the modification?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Additionally, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding independent claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

1) First Issue
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Ham describes
that the applied voltages in different sub-fields of a frame start high, drop to
an intermediate voltage, and then drop further, which is the opposite of the
applied voltages in claim 1 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2). The Examiner cited
Appeal 2011-000203
Application 11/198,141

4
Ham for disclosing, “adjusting the voltage applied to the liquid crystal
within an individual frame . . . .” Ans. 5 (citing Ham ¶¶ 0053, 0055-0057;
Figs. 8A-8C). As the Examiner correctly finds, Song teaches that an
“overshoot voltage is applied in [a] period after pre-tilt” (Ans. 4 (citing Song
¶ 0055; Fig. 6)). As can be seen from Figure 6 of Song, the overshoot
voltage during frame n+1 is larger than the pre-tilt voltage during frame n.
Song Fig. 6; see also Song ¶ 0055; Ans. 4. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).

2) Second Issue
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that no reason existed
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Song and Ham (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3). Modifying Song’s
disclosure of a voltage modulation technique with Ham’s disclosure of
varying voltages within the period of a frame is no more than a predictable
use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions,
thereby rendering the recited invention obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Additionally, the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would combine the technique of Ham with the system of Song
(Ans. 5 (“it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify Song . . . as taught by Ham, for the
purpose of improving picture quality.”); see also Ans. 25; Ham Abstract).
Appeal 2011-000203
Application 11/198,141

5
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that each of Ham
and Song would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art away from the
modification (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue deficiencies in
each of Ham and Song. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3. A prior art reference
that does not specifically refer to an element of a combination does not, per
se, teach away. See Syntex (U.S.A.) v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2005). Also, Appellants do not direct us to objective evidence to
support their assertion. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of
evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782
(CCPA 1977).
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and dependent
claims 2–8, 10, and 11, not separately argued (App. Br. 10, 15).
Accordingly, we sustain that rejection.
Appellants’ arguments for the patentability of claims 9, 13, 21, and
24–27 substantially parallel those made for the patentability of claim 1. See
generally App. Br. 11-15; compare App. Br. 7-10. For example, regarding
claim 13, Appellants contend that as explained in Song, “the pre-tilting
voltage that is applied occurs in the (n-1)th frame, rather than in the (n)th
frame.” App. Br. 12-13; compare App. Br. 10. For the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 13, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and
dependent claims 14–19, 22, and 23 not separately argued (App. Br. 13, 15,
16). Accordingly, we sustain those rejections. Additionally, Appellants
Appeal 2011-000203
Application 11/198,141

6
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and
25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, therefore, we sustain that rejection.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 13–19, and 21–27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj