Ex Parte KIMURA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2016

13550855 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

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.
13/550,855 07/17/2012 Hajime KIMURA 0756-9854 9186
31780 7590 03/08/2016
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C.
3975 Fair Ridge Drive
Suite 20 North
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
SHERMAN, STEPHEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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 HAJIME KIMURA and SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI
____________________

Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral
arguments on February 16, 2016.
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “a multi-window
display device” in which “plural screens also called multi-windows are
displayed on a display screen” (Spec. 1, ll. 5–8).

Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

2
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A display device comprising:
a first wiring;
a second wiring;
a third wiring;
a fourth wiring; and
a pixel comprising:
a first transistor;
a second transistor;
a third transistor;
a memory comprising a first terminal and a second
terminal; and
a display element,
wherein one of a source and a drain of the first transistor
is electrically connected with the first wiring, the other of the
source and the drain of the first transistor is electrically
connected with the first terminal of the memory and a gate of the
third transistor, and a gate of the first transistor is electrically
connected with the fourth wiring,
wherein one of a source and a drain of the second transistor
is electrically connected with the second wiring, the other of the
source and the drain of the second transistor is directly connected
with the display element and a gate of the second transistor is
electrically connected with the second terminal of the memory,
and
wherein one of a source and a drain of the third transistor
is electrically connected with the third wiring, and the other of
the source and the drain of the third transistor is directly
connected with the display element.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:

Koyama US 2002/0041266 Al Apr. 11, 2002

Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

3
Pathak US 6,476,785 B1 Nov. 5, 2002

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pathak and Koyama.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding the combination of Pathak and Koyama teaches or would have
suggested the claimed display device circuit.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants’ Invention
1. Appellants’ invention is directed to a display device, wherein Figure
5B is reproduced below:

Figure 5B shows a static random-access memory (SRAM) 535 having
two transistors for each different polarities, such that an input signal is
inputted to the drain region of one of the pairs while an output signal is
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

4
output from the drain region of the other pair, thereby the SRAM is designed
so as to hold the input signal and output the output signal obtained by
inverting the input signal (Spec. 15, l. 19–16, l. 6). The memory, which is
inputted with the signal that selects either the first signal line or the second
signal line, is used, and thus, a load on an integrated circuit can be reduced
since the video signals for plural screens do not need to be stored in the
memory (Spec. 18, ll. 1–4).
Pathak
2. Pathak discloses a drive circuit for a liquid crystal display that
displays one set of image data while receiving a second set of image,
wherein one storage capacitor is coupled to the output node while another
storage capacitor is isolated from the output node and receives new image
data (Abstract). Figure 7 is reproduced below:

Figure 7 shows that, while C1 or C2 is isolated from liquid crystal
PXL, row selector 45 or 47 activates row line R_1,A or R_1,B and thereby
activates selector transistor S1 or S2, thus, coupling column line CL1,A or
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

5
CL1,B from video signal generator 49A or 49B to storage capacitor C1 or
C2 (col. 9, ll. 1–11).
3. Each row within array 41 may be selected by any one of row
selectors 45 and 47, wherein no two row selectors 45, 47 may select the
same row at the same time and any row may be selected by multiple row
selectors 45, 47 in succession (col. 5, ll. 21–25).
Koyama
4. Koyama discloses a liquid crystal device, wherein the image
signal stored in the memory circuits is read out every frame to perform the
display, and thus, only a DAC controller is driven during the display
(Abstract). Figure 1 is reproduced below:

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “[t]here is no proper or sufficient reason, either in
the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

6
ordinary skill in the art, to modify Pathak and Koyama or to combine
reference teachings to achieve the claimed invention” (App. Br. 8). In
particular, Appellants contend, “the combination asserted by the Office
Action as detailed in the Advisory Action would increase, not reduce, circuit
size and complexity” (App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted), and thus, the Office
Action and Advisory Action “fail to establish that the proposed combination
of prior art elements could achieve the stated reason to combine” (App. Br.
11). According to Appellants, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had no reasonable expectation of success of reducing Pathak’s number
of wrings[sic] or reducing circuit size and complexity by adding the various
wirings, elements, and operable connections from Koyama, as proposed in
the Office Action” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “would not
have reasonably expected to successfully replace specific elements of
Pathak’s device with incongruous elements of Koyama’s” (id.).
Further, Appellants contend “the hypothetical modification of Pathak
would appear to render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose and change the principle of operation of the prior art
invention being modified” (App. Br. 12). In particular, Appellants contend
“[i]f Pathak’s multiple storage capacitors holding a single reference voltage
were replaced with Koyama’s memory circuit and multiple gradation power
source lines,” the resulting combination “would appear to Pathak
unsatisfactory for this intended object or, at least, change the principle of
operation” (App. Br. 13).
As an initial matter, we note that Appellants do not point to any
particular claim language, and thus, do not contend that the cited references
fail to disclose or suggest any of the claimed limitations. Instead,
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

7
Appellants’ contentions turn on “[t]here is no proper or sufficient reason” to
combine and modify the references as proposed (App. Br. 8), wherein the
proposed modification would “increase, not reduce, circuit size and
complexity” as reasoned by the Examiner (App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted);
and such modification would render the primary reference Pathak
“unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change [its] principle of
operation” (App. Br. 12).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s findings,
and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Pathak discloses all of the claimed
embodiments except “a first wiring,” “a fourth wiring,” and the pixel circuit
further comprising “a first transistor” and “a memory,” wherein these
elements are connected as claimed (Fin. Rej. 3–4; FF 2). However, we find
no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Koyama for disclosing and
suggesting the contested elements missing from Pathak (Fin. Rej. 4; FF 4).
We also find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that “it would
have been obvious to ‘one of ordinary skill’ in the art at the time the
invention was made” to use the circuit teachings of Koyama and apply them
to the pixel circuitry of Pathak “in order to reduce the number of wirings
needed for each pixel circuit, thus reducing circuit size and complexity”
(Fin. Rej. 5). In particular, as the Examiner explains, it would have been
understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan, upon combining Pathak’s
teachings with Koyama’s teachings, Pathak’s “transistors and wirings S1, S2
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

8
and R_1,A and R_1,B, respectively, would be replaced by a single transistor
105 and single wiring 102” of Koyama, and further “the memories C1 and
C2” of Pathak “would be replaced by the memory structure 108” of
Koyama; thus “it can be clearly understood by ‘one of ordinary skill’ in the
art that in the device as a whole, there will be one less transistor per pixel
and one less wiring per row” (Adv. Act.; FF 2, 4).
Although Appellants contend, “the combination asserted by the Office
Action as detailed in the Advisory Action would increase, not reduce, circuit
size and complexity” (App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted), Appellants appear to
view the combination in a different perspective than that of the Examiner.
The issue here is not whether the skilled artisan would have bodily
incorporated the entire system of Koyama into the entire system of Pathak,
and thus, would have added the extra elements. Rather, the issue is whether
the ordinarily skilled artisan, upon reading Pathak and Koyama, would have
found it obvious to replace Pathak’s transistors and wirings S1, S2 and
R_1,A and R_1,B, respectively, with Koyama’s a single transistor 105 and
single wiring 102, and furthermore, also would modify the entire circuitry
accordingly in the incorporation.
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, “both Pathak and Koyama
disclose a second wiring, a third wiring, a second transistor, a third transistor
and a display element” (Ans. 10; FF 2, 4). Accordingly, “elements S1 and
S2, R_1,A and R,1_B, CL1,A and CL1,B, C1 and C2, and 53” of Pathak
“would be replaced by 105, 117, 120, 108, and 101 and 102” of Koyama;
wherein “including 111 and 112” of Koyama would merely “be replacing
elements E1 and E2” of Pathak, “not in addition to” (id.), and thus, “for each
pixel circuit the circuit is reduced by one transistor” (Ans. 11). That is, we
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

9
agree with the Examiner the ordinarily skilled artisan would have not
included Koyama’s second and third transistors (Fin. Rej. 4) in addition to
Pathak’s second and third transistors (id.), but rather would have replaced
the pair of transistors from one to another in the combination.
The test for obviousness is what Koyama when combined with
Pathak, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion the ordinarily skilled artisan “would readily have
realized how to incorporate the memory circuit of Koyama into the device of
Pathak” (Ans. 12).
The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be
based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, Appellants have presented no evidence that incorporating the memory
circuit of Koyama into the device on Pathak, thus replacing a pair of
transistors with a single transistor, would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR 550
U.S. at 418). Contrary to Appellants’ assertion that the person of ordinary
skill in the art “would not have reasonably expected to successfully replace
specific elements in Pathak’s device with incongruous elements of
Koyama’s” (App. Br. 11), the skilled artisan is “[a] person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. We are persuaded that
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

10
Examiner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
As set forth in Appellants’ Specification, Appellants’ display device
comprises a memory designed so as to hold the input signal and output the
output signal obtained (FF 1). Pathak similarly discloses a display device
comprising storage capacitors, with one storage capacitor coupled to the
output node while another storage capacitor is isolated from the output node
and receives new image data (FF 2).
Although Appellants contend “the hypothetical modification of
Pathak would appear to render the prior art invention being modified
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change the principle of operation
of the prior art invention being modified” (App. Br. 12), as explained by the
Examiner, “Pathak . . . establishes an express objective ‘row-by-row
updating of image information in the array,” wherein “the function is still
achieved in the combinational result” with Koyama (Ans. 13). In fact,
Pathak discloses that no two row selectors may actually access the same row
at the same time (FF 3).
Thus, we conclude that it would have been well within the skill of one
skilled in the art to combine Koyama’s teachings with that of Pathak. We
agree with the Examiner that “using the teachings of Koyama to modify
Pathak, the device is still able to display its current contents while it is
simultaneously being overwritten with a new set” (Ans. 14). Such a
substitution/design choice would have been well within the skill of the art.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That is, we agree Appellants’ invention is simply
a modification of familiar prior art teachings (as taught or suggested by the
cited references) that would have realized a predictable result. KSR at 421.
Appeal 2014-001459
Application 13/550,855

11
Minor differences between the prior art and a claimed device may be a
matter of design choice absent evidence to the contrary (see In re Rice, 341
F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)).
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 over Pathak and Koyama. Appellants do not provide
arguments for claims 2–20 separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 7), and,
accordingly, claims 2–20 fall with claim 1.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED