Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

13585987 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/585,987 08/15/2012
9629 7590 10/25/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JooHongLee
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.
002463-5045 6924
EXAMINER
LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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):
patents@morganlewis.com
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOO HONG LEE, SEOUNGJIN PARK,
MOOHYOUNG SONG, SANGRYEON PARK, and
TAE YOUNG JUNG
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25. Claims 4--8, 12-14, and 20 have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a display device having a thin thickness and
a design improved in a sense of beauty. (Spec. ,r 2). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display device comprising:
a display panel including a main display region and a
periphery region outside the main display region, the main
display region of the display panel including left, right, upper,
and lower sides;
a panel driver connected with the display panel in the
periphery region of the display panel; and
a first light shielding member and a second light shielding
member, the first and the second light shielding members being
respectively disposed directly on different underlying layers or
different underlying surfaces in the display panel,
wherein the display panel includes an upper substrate and
a lower substrate under a lower surface of the upper substrate,
and gate lines and data lines on the lower surface of the upper
substrate,
wherein the lower substrate exposes a pad region provided
on the lower surface of the upper substrate, and the panel driver
is connected to the pad region provided on the lower surface of
the upper substrate,
2
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
wherein the first light shielding member is disposed in the
main display region and over the gate lines and data lines, and
has a pattern corresponding to the gate lines and data lines,
wherein the second light shielding member is disposed in
the periphery region to shield external light from being reflected
in the periphery region,
wherein the pad region is provided in the periphery region
and adjacent only one of the left, right, upper, and lower sides of
the main display region, and
wherein the panel driver is configured to provide signals
to the gate lines and the data lines, and is disposed adjacent only
the one of the left, right, upper, and lower sides of the main
display region.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Togashi et al.
Matthies
Kang et al.
Lin et al.
Takahashi et al.
US 2002/0044251 Al
US 6,498,592 B 1
US 2009/0310057 Al
US 2011/0080348 Al
US 2011/0304791 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 18, 2002
Dec. 24, 2002
Dec. 17, 2009
Apr. 7, 2011
Dec. 15, 2011
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 22, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Matthies and
further in view of Togashi.
Claims 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Matthies and
3
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
further in view of Togashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Lin.
Claim 19 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Matthies, and further in view of
Togashi, and further in view of Lin as applied to claim 16 above, and further
in view of Kang.
Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Togashi, and further in view of Lin.
ANALYSIS
With respect to claims 1-3, 22, and 25, Appellants argue the claims
together. (App. Br. 9). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for the group and will address Appellants' arguments
thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
contend that the Examiner concedes, Takahashi discloses both light
shielding layers 23A and 23B on the same surface of the same underlying
layer. (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend that "Takahashi not only
fails to disclose forming the light shielding layers 23A and 23B on "different
underlying layers or on different underlying surfaces," and "also teaches
away from doing so." (App. Br. 11 ).
The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been able to consider the four alternative arrangements/locations for
the first and second light shielding members. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner
4
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
explains the line of reasoning for the combination and placement of one light
shielding layer on both surfaces based upon what one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood. (Ans. 11-12). The Examiner further explains
the combination of prior art references and motivation for placement of one
light shielding layer on different layers or on different underlying surfaces.
(Ans. 12-14).
The Examiner further identifies that Appellants' Specification does
not identify any difficulty in having the layers on two different surfaces or
that it is in any way difficult or unexpected. (Ans. 13-14). Consequently,
the Examiner extrapolates the teachings of two layers on either of two
surfaces where there are limited places for the layers to be placed, and it
would not be difficult and would not have unexpected difficulty. (Ans. 13-
14 ). The Examiner identifies that Appellants' Specification seems to regard
the potential combination of layers to be rather trivial and not worth
explaining. (Ans. 14).
The Examiner further finds that because Appellants' Specification
barely provides any support, that the same combination of references would
have similarly taught and suggested the claimed invention. The Examiner
analogizes that for Appellants' Specification to be enabling, the same level
of disclosure in the prior art would have been sufficient to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have appreciated that the first and second light shielding
members may be "disposed directly on different underlying layers or
different underlying surfaces in the display panel." (Ans. 14).
Additionally, Appellants generally contend that the prior art teaches
away from the combination and "the first and the second light shielding
5
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
members being respectively disposed directly on different underlying layers
or different underlying surfaces in the display panel." (App. Br. 12).
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). We disagree with Appellants' general contention because
Appellants have identified no teaching away.
We note that Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to respond to the
Examiner's further clarifications and line of reasoning for the combination
of the Takahashi, Matthies, and Togashi references and the line of reasoning
for placing the two light shielding layers on different underlying layers or
different underlying surfaces in the display panel in the rejection of
independent claim 1. As a result, Appellants' have not shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings or ultimate conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 25,
Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent
claim 1. (App. Br. 12). Because we found no error in the Examiner's
rejection of representative independent claim 1, Appellants' reliance thereon
does not show error in the rejection of the dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, Appellants
contend that the Lin reference fails to disclose or render obvious a "sub
display device" that is "under the upper substrate" in the periphery region of
the display panel, as recited in claim 15. (App. Br. 13-14). Appellants
contend, with respect to the recited "sub display device," the Examiner
6
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
admitted that "'Lin does not show the same positioning as now claimed.'
April 27, 2016 Office Action at p. 9." (App. Br. 14). Appellants further
contend that the elongated shape and placement of the secondary display of
Lin cannot be placed between the circuit films of Takahashi. (App. Br. 15).
The Examiner provides a reasoned explanation for the additional
combination of the Lin reference and provides a line of reasoning with a
rational underpinning explaining how the combination meets the claimed
limitation. (Ans. 15-19). We agree with the Examiner's line of reasoning
and find Appellants' have not provided any Reply Brief to further respond to
the Examiner's clarifications. As a result, Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of claims
15, 16, 18, and 19.
With respect to dependent claim 25, Appellants repeat the language of
the claim and rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent
claim 1. (App. Br. 16). The Examiner maintains that the same line of
reasoning applies with respect to claims 15 and 16 and Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive of error. (Ans. 19). As a result, Appellants'
have not shown error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness of claim 25.
With respect to independent claims 22 and 23, Appellants repeat the
language of the claims and rely upon the arguments set forth with respect to
independent claims 1, 15, and 25. (App. Br. 17-19). The Examiner relies
upon the findings as set forth with respect to claims 1, 15, and 25. As a
result, Appellants' have not shown error in the Examiner's factual findings
or conclusion of obviousness of claims 22 and 23.
7
Appeal2018-001732
Application 13/585,987
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22,
23, and 25 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1-3, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8