Ex Parte Kawada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

13955625 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/955,625 07/31/2013
134795 7590 10/01/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hitoshi Kawada
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.
880125-5500-USOO 9480
EXAMINER
RAYAN, MIHIR K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
sbj ames@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HITOSHI KAW ADA and NAOBUMI TOYOMURA
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 14. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as JO LED Inc. of Tokyo,
Japan. App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed January 5, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed June 26, 2017;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 2, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed November 29, 2017.
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a display panel including a
light-emitting element, such as an organic-electro luminescence (EL)
element for each pixel. Spec. 1
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A display device, comprising:
a plurality of pixel circuits disposed in a matrix including
rows and columns,
the plurality of pixel circuits including a first pixel circuit
and a second pixel circuit adjacent to one another in the matrix,
the first pixel circuit being configured to emit single-color light
of a first color, the second pixel circuit being configured to emit
single-color light of a second color;
wherein a threshold voltage correction is performed for the
first pixel circuit and the second pixel circuit within a first
horizontal scanning period, wherein a given signal line provides
a first image data signal and a second image data signal
respectively to the first pixel circuit and the second pixel circuit,
the first pixel circuit and the second pixel circuit being
configured to respectively receive the first image data signal and
the second image data signal from the given signal line within a
second horizontal scanning period after the first horizontal
scanning period, the first pixel circuit being configured to receive
the first image data signal before the second pixel circuit receives
the second image data signal within the second horizontal
scanning period, and wherein the first color is green.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Kim et al.
Cho et al.
Asano et al.
Hashimoto
Stallings et al.
US 2006/0034125 Al
US 2008/0079678 Al
US 2009/0244055 Al
US 2010/0110114 Al
US 2010/0156808 Al
2
Feb. 16,2006
Apr. 3, 2008
Oct. 1, 2009
May 6, 2010
June 24, 2010
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim and Asano. Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Asano, and Cho. Final Act. 6.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stallings, Kim, and Asano. Final Act. 10.
Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Asano and Hashimoto. Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Asano, Hashimoto, and Cho. Final Act. 9.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KIM AND ASANO
The Examiner finds that Kim teaches every limitation recited in claim
1 except for the threshold voltage correction. Final Act. 3--4. In concluding
that claim 1 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Asano as teaching
this feature. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, Kim's paragraph 65
teaches an OLED device, and the cited portions of Kim that relate to an LCD
are merely exemplary. Ans. 12.
Appellants contend that the Examiner-cited pixel circuits do not emit
light, as required by claim 1, because the circuits belong to an LCD display,
not an OLED. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Kim provides no
guidance about which portions of the LCD display may be used in an OLED
architecture. Id. (citing Kim ,r 65). Appellants argue that Kim's LCD pixel
circuits do not have a drive transistor, and thus, do not have a threshold
voltage in need of correction. Id. ( citing Kim Fig.3). In Appellants' view,
3
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
Kim's LCD-type pixel must be eliminated or substantially modified to arrive
at an OLED architecture. Id. Appellants contend that Kim states that the
panel's interference is present between two adjacent LCD pixels, not OLED
pixels, and between the gate lines and pixels. Reply Br. 3 ( citing
Kim ,r,r 64---65).
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1
would have been obvious over Kim and Asano.
In particular, claim 1 recites "the first pixel circuit being configured to
emit single-color light of a first color, the second pixel circuit being
configured to emit single-color light of a second color" ( emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Kim teaches this limitation in paragraphs 33 and 34.
Final Act. 3.
In the cited paragraphs, Kim teaches each pixel PX "uniquely
represents" a primary color or each pixel PX "sequentially represents" the
primary colors. Kim ,r 33. According to Kim, pixels PX include red, green,
and blue color filters 230. Id. ,r,r 33-34.
Unlike the recited pixel circuits, Kim's embodiments relate to LCD
displays. Id. ,r 24. According to Kim, "[t]he pixels of the LCD adjust the
transmittance of incident light depending on the data signals, while those of
the OLED adjust the luminance of light emission depending on the data
signals." Id. ,r 5 (emphasis added).
Here, the Examiner acknowledges that Kim's LCD display in Figure 3
is different from the later-mentioned OLED display device. Ans. 12. We,
however, agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
4
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
modified Kim's LCD embodiment with the OLED embodiment to arrive at
the claimed display device. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner explains that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
understand the similarity between Kim's two embodiments. Ans. 12. But
the Examiner has not adequately supported this finding. For example, the
Examiner has not shown whether the relied-upon features from Kim's LCD
configuration are present in the OLED architecture. See Kim ,r 65. Notably,
the Examiner cites Kim for the teaching of sequentially driving the
subpixels. Ans. 3 ( citing Kim ,r 60). But the Examiner has not shown
whether this feature is part of the OLED architecture. Id.
We, therefore, are constrained by this record to find that the Examiner
has erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious, and its dependent claims 1, 2, and
5-7 for similar reasons. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 9, which recites similar limitations and is similarly rejected, or its
dependent claims 12, 13, and 14. See Final Act. 5.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ASANO AND HASHIMOTO
The Examiner finds that Asano teaches every limitation recited in
claim 15 except for the pixel circuits. Final Act. 7-8. In concluding that
claim 15 would have been obvious, the Examiner finds that Hashimoto
teaches this feature. Id. at 8. According to the Examiner, it would have
been obvious to modify Asano to include a double-scanning method where
adjacent pixels share a common data line because doing so would have
reduced the number of data lines and reduced crosstalk between adjacent
pixels. Id.
5
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to modify an
OLED-driving method to include an LCD-driving method. App. Br. 13.
According to Appellants, Hashimoto discloses that adjacent liquid-crystal
cells include adjacent common electrodes, and thus, are susceptible to
crosstalk, but Asano' s OLED pixel circuit does not include a liquid crystal
with a common electrode. Reply Br. 8 ( citing Hashimoto ,r 59;
Asano Fig. 17).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that
Hashimoto's proposed benefits are applicable to Asano's display.
App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-6.
In particular, Hashimoto's liquid-crystal cells each have a pixel
electrode. Hashimoto ,r 59. Hashimoto provides a liquid crystal between the
pixel electrode and a common electrode. Id. According to Hashimoto,
crosstalk is the result of a coupling capacitance of the pixel electrodes
between two liquid-crystal cells----one driven first and another later.
Id. ,r 76. Hashimoto's method suppresses this crosstalk. Id.
By contrast, the Examiner-cited embodiment of Asano contains pixel
circuits that include OLED elements. Final Act. 7 ( citing Asano, Figs. 17
and 18). Although the Examiner finds that modifying Asano with
Hashimoto would reduce crosstalk (id. at 8), the Examiner has not shown
that Asano teaches a liquid crystal that contains the common electrode
described in Hashimoto. Id. Rather, Asano teaches a different display
architecture, and the Examiner has not shown that Asano contains electrodes
like those in Hashimoto. Asano Figs. 17 and 18; accord App. Br. 13-14.
Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner has not sufficiently articulated a
rationale to modify Asano with Hashimoto.
6
Appeal2018-001498
Application 13/955,625
On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 15, or dependent claims 16, 19, and 20, for similar
reasons.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claim 8, which depends from claim 1, as being
obvious over Stallings, Kim, and Asano. Final Act. 10. The Examiner
rejects claims 17 and 18 as being obvious over Asano, Hashimoto, and Cho
and rejects claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 over Kim, Asano, and Cho. Id. at 6, 9.
Because the additional references are not relied upon to teach the limitation
missing from the parent claims, the additional references do not cure the
deficiency discussed above. See id. at 6, 9-10. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7