Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12949931 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/949,931 11/19/2010
22150 7590 11/02/2016
F CHAU & AS SOCIA TES, LLC
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jae-Hoon Lee
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.
8071-411 6757
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
mail@chauiplaw.com
garramone@chauiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE-HOON LEE, SEUNG-HWAN MOON,
YONG-SOON LEE, YOUNG-SU KIM, CHANG-HO LEE,
WHEE-WON LEE, JUN-YONG SONG, and YU-HAN BAE
Appeal2015-004056
Application 12/949,931
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-13, 17, and 19-22. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The Examiner noted claims 15, 16, 18, and 23-34 are objected to (Final
Act. 4).
Appeal2015-004056
Application 12/949,931
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed "to a display panel having a gate
driver integrated therein" (Spec. 1: 10-11 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A display panel comprising:
a display area including a gate line;
a gate driver connected to one end of the gate line, the
gate driver including a plurality of stages and being integrated
on a substrate, wherein the stages receive a clock signal, a first
low voltage and a second low voltage, at least one transmission
signal from a previous stage, and at least one transmission
signal from one of a next stage to output a gate voltage
including a first low voltage as a gate-off voltage,
a first transistor including a control terminal that receives
the at least one transmission signal to the next stage and an
input terminal connected to a first node, and
a second transistor including a control terminal and an
input terminal connected to an output terminal of the first
transistor and an output terminal connected to the second lo\'l/
voltage which is not included in the gate voltage.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-13, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kim (US 2007/0296681 Al; published
Dec. 27, 2007), Huq (US 5,859,630; issued Jan. 12, 1999), and Maekawa
(US 6,392,627 B 1; issued May 21, 2002).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Kim discloses all the claimed limitations except
for the second transistor including an input terminal connected to an output
2
Appeal2015-004056
Application 12/949,931
terminal of a first transistor and an output terminal connected to a second
low voltage, but that Huq discloses a transistor connected between a first
node and a second low voltage node and "Maekawa discloses a diode-
connected transistor ... connected between a transistor ... and a negative
potential" lower than a potential (Final Act. 6-7).
Appellants contend the Examiner's combination of Kim, Huq, and
Maekawa would not be an obvious combination, particularly as the
Examiner refers to the voltages in the cited references as "gate-off voltages";
whereas Appellants claim a gate voltage including a first low voltage as a
gate-off voltage and a second low voltage which is not a gate voltage (App.
Br. 6). Appellants' arguments in their Appeal Brief have not been
considered by Examiner (Reply Br. 8); rather the Examiner merely states
Appellants are arguing limitations not found in the claims, without
addressing Appellants' contentions (Ans. 2). As Appellants' contentions are
reasonable (App. Br. 6-7; Reply 7-8, it would not be obvious to combine
Maekawa with Kim and Huq), on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-13, 17, and 19-22 as obvious over the
combination of Kim, Huq, and Maekawa.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-13, 17, and 19-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
3