Ex Parte Kwak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

11129016 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WON-KYU KWAK
____________

Appeal 2012-010051
Application 11/129,016
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, 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 non-final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10–12. Claims
3 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 6–9 have been withdrawn from
consideration. (Br. 1.)1 Claims 13 and 15 are indicated as including
allowable subject matter by the Examiner. (Ans. 3; Br. 1.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 13, 2005,
claiming benefit of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2004-0036855, filed
May 24, 2004 and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed January 17, 2012. We also
refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 26, 2012.
Appeal 2012-010051
Application 11/129,016

2

Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns display panels and devices
having a pixel circuit including at least two light-emitting elements and
wherein in the physical layout of the pixel circuit a power electrode line is
arranged between first and second data lines, crosses first and second scan
lines, and extends through an area between the two light-emitting elements.
(Spec. ¶¶ 2, 15–28; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A display device comprising:
first and second scan lines extending in a first direction,
and for transferring first and second selection signals,
respectively;
first and second data lines crossing the first and second
scan lines, extending in a second direction, and for transferring
first and second data signals, respectively; and
a pixel circuit in a pixel area defined by the first and
second scan lines and the first and second data lines, the pixel
circuit comprising:
a first transistor having a control electrode coupled to
the first scan line, and configured to be turned on in response to
the first selection signal to transfer the first data signal;
a second transistor for outputting a current
corresponding to the first data signal;
a third transistor having a control electrode coupled to
the second scan line, and configured to be turned on in response
to the second selection signal;
Appeal 2012-010051
Application 11/129,016

3

a power electrode line extending in the second
direction; and
at least two light-emitting elements for emitting light
corresponding to the current output from the second transistor,
wherein in a physical layout of the pixel circuit:
the power electrode line crosses the first and
second scan lines and is arranged between the first and second
data lines, and the power electrode line extends through an
area between two of the at least two light-emitting elements;
the first transistor is arranged adjacent to the first
data line;
the third transistor is arranged adjacent to the
second data line and is between the power electrode line and the
second data line; and
the first and third transistors are arranged near
opposite ends of a diagonal line from one corner to another
corner of the pixel area having the pixel circuit therein.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0062524
A1, published Apr. 3, 2003 (“Kimura ’524”), US Patent App. Pub. No.
2004/0239658 A1, published Dec. 2, 2004 (filed Nov. 24, 2003)
(“Koyama”), and US Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0190126 A1, published
Sept. 1, 2005 (filed Aug. 28, 2003) (“Kimura ’126”).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimura ’524, Koyama, Kimura ’126, and US Patent No.
6,421,033 B1, issued July 16, 2002 (“Williams”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over US Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0217694 A1,
Appeal 2012-010051
Application 11/129,016

4

published Nov. 4, 2004 (filed Apr. 30, 2003) (“Cok”), Williams, and
Koyama.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10–12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of: (1) Kimura ’524, Koyama, and
Kimura ’126; (2) Kimura ’524, Koyama, Kimura ’126, and Williams; and
(3) Cok, Williams, and Koyama based on the interpretation of a schematic
diagram (layout) of a circuit being equivalent to a physical layout of a
(pixel) circuit within the meaning of representative claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations of claim 10?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kimura ’524, Koyama, and Kimura ’126. (Ans.
5–8, 14–16.) Appellant contends, inter alia, that Kimura ’524, Koyama, and
Kimura ’126 do not teach the disputed features of claim 1. (Br. 5–8.)
Specifically, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in interpreting the
circuit schematic (Fig. 2) in Koyama as equivalent to a physical circuit
layout (of the recited pixel circuit):
Although the Examiner recognizes FIG. 2 of Koyama as
being a circuit schematic, not the physical layout, of the pixel
circuit, Appellant submits that the Examiner incorrectly equates
the circuit schematic with the circuit layout of the pixel circuit.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s assertion that the term
Appeal 2012-010051
Application 11/129,016

5

“physical layout” as used in claim 1 could be interpreted as a
schematic layout because the physical layout of a circuit
provides information on the actual physical dimension of a
circuit layout (e.g., trace width and length, relative locations of
different circuit components) that is not disclosed in a
schematic.
(Br. 5–6.)
We agree with Appellant that the portions of Koyama identified by
the Examiner do not teach or suggest the disputed features of independent
claim 1, and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for
essentially the reasons set forth by Appellant. (Br. 5–8.)
Although the Examiner is correct that the “claim language . . . does
not claim the physical dimensions, length, width and etc. of each component
within the pixel circuit . . .” (Ans. 14), we cannot agree that this somehow
makes a circuit schematic equivalent to a physical circuit layout. Even if
Koyama (Fig. 2) describes schematically a power electrode line (203)
extending between two light-emitting elements (207and 208) as asserted by
the Examiner (Ans. 14), nothing in the cited portions of Koyama would have
taught or suggested how to physically layout the circuit without relying on
Appellant’s Specification as a guide (employing impermissible hindsight).
The Examiner’s proposed modifications — combining the circuits of
Kimura ’524 and Koyama and laying out the resulting circuit according to
the schematic of Koyama (Fig. 2) (Ans. 7–8, 14–16) — amount to the use of
impermissible hindsight reconstruction in piecing together portions of
individual references in order to come up with a structure meeting the
limitations of claim 1. The proffered reason to make the proposed
modifications — “for the purpose of providing a dual emission display
Appeal 2012-010051
Application 11/129,016

6

device” (Ans. 8) — fails to take into account how one would make the
physical layout of the modified pixel circuit, lacks the necessary rational
underpinning and is, therefore, a product of hindsight reconstruction.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Koyama in combination with Kimura ’524 and
Kimura ’126 would have taught or suggested the recited features of
Appellant’s claim 1 — that “in a physical layout of the pixel circuit” “the
power electrode line crosses the first and second scan lines and is arranged
between the first and second data lines, and the power electrode line extends
through an area between two of the at least two light-emitting elements”
(claim 1). Appellant’s independent claim 10 includes limitations of
commensurate scope. Appellant’s dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12
depend on and stand with their respective base claims. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10–
12.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
4, 5, and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10–12.

REVERSED

tj