Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

14158709 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/158,709 01/17/2014
23363 7590 09/28/2018
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hae-Y eon 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.
073861/411601-00054 5561
EXAMINER
RAYAN, MIHIR K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAE-YEON LEE, YONG-JAE KIM, and BO-YONG CHUNG
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 9 and 14, all pending claims. 2 App.
Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants state that Samsung Display Co., Ltd., is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-12 and 14--23 are pending. Final Action Summary. Claims 1-8
stand as allowed. Id. Claims 9 and 14 stand as rejected. Id. Claims 10-12
and 15-23 recite allowable subject matter, but are objected to as depending
from a rejected base claim. Final Act. 5.
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
We REVERSE. 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a stage to supply a scan signal to an organic light
emitting display device. See Abstract; Claim 9.
Invention
Claim 9 is independent. Illustrative claim 9 is reproduced below:
9. An organic light emitting display device, comprising:
pixels in an area defined by scan lines and data lines;
a data driver configured to supply data signals to the data lines;
and
a scan driver comprising stages respectively coupled to the scan
lines so as to supply scan signals to the scan lines,
wherein odd-numbered stages are configured to be driven by
first signals and a control signal, and even-numbered stages are
configured to be driven by second signals that are different from
the first signals and the control signal,
wherein each of the first and second signals comprises first,
second, third, and fourth clock signals, and
wherein the first to fourth clock signals are progressively
supplied so that voltages of the first to fourth clock signals are
not overlapped at a low level with one another.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 12, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed November 28 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
(mailed September 28, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 5, 2016,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 17, 20143, "Spec.") for
their respective details.
2
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
References and Rejections
Chung, et al., ("Chung") US 2013/0002340 Al Jan. 3, 2013
Lee, et al., ("Lee") US 2013/0002630 Al Jan. 3, 2013
Claims 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chung and Lee. Final Act. 3-5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 9 and 14 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 3-7.
CLAIMS 9 and 14: OBVIOUSNESS OVER CHUNG AND LEE
Claim 9 relates to an organic light emitting display device comprising
pixels defined by scan and data lines. Claim 9. The claimed device further
comprises scan-driver stages respectively coupled to the scan lines to supply
scan signals thereto. Id. The claimed device is configured such that odd-
numbered stages are driven by a control signal and first signals and even-
numbered stages are driven by second signals which differ from the first
signals and the control signal. Id. Each of the first and second signals
comprise first, second, third, and fourth clock signals, wherein the clock
signals are progressively supplied so that the voltages of the first through
fourth clock signals are not overlapped at a low level with one another. Id.
The Examiner finds Chung4 discloses an organic light emitting
display device, substantially as claimed. See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
4 We note the inventive entity of Chung is substantially, but not completely,
identical to the inventive entity of the present invention.
3
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
finds Chung fails to disclose wherein the clock signals are progressively
supplied so that the voltages of the first through fourth clock signals are not
overlapped at a low level with one another. Id. 4. The Examiner finds Lee5
discloses an organic light emitting display device, substantially as claimed
wherein first through third clock signals are progressively applied, but
wherein the clock signals are not overlapped at a low level. Id. The
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Chung and Lee
because such a modification would be the result of simple substitution of
one known element for another. Id.
Appellants contend modifying Chung (i.e., Appellants' prior
invention) with the teachings of Lee (i.e., also Appellants' prior invention)
to achieve the present invention would change the principle of operation of
Chung and also render it unsatisfactory for its purpose. App. Br. 4.
F[G, 4
Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of the scan-driver stage of Chung. Figure 3
is a schematic diagram of the scan-driver stage of the present invention.
Appellants compare the first stage of Chung to that of the present invention
and detail several differences in their respective circuit design. Id.
5 We note the inventive entity of Lee overlaps the inventive entity of both
Chung and of the present invention.
4
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
Appellants explain the Chung stage comprises sixteen ( 16) transistors, four
( 4) capacitors, and seven (7) inputs, whereas the comparative stage of the
present invention comprises nine (9) transistors, two (2) capacitors, and five
(5) inputs. Id. Appellants argue the two stages are not simple substitution
for one another. Id.
Appellants contend modification of Chung "would render the organic
light emitting display device of Chung unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose, and would also change the principle of operation of the organic
light emitting display device of Chung." App. Br.4. Appellants further
contend that the modification would "require[] a substantial reconstruction
and redesign of the elements" and "render the organic light emitting display
device of Chung inoperable." App.Br. 4--5.
The Examiner finds that "the Office is substituting the relative timing
of the clock signals such that a progressive timing is applied to Chung" and
"substituting the relative timing of the clock signals such that the first the
fourth clock signals are progressively supplied so that voltages of the first to
fourth clock signals are not overlapped with one another would have been
obvious." Ans. 7-8. The Examiner further finds that the modification
would not change the principle of operation of the organic light meeting
display of Chung because "principal operation being outputting timing
signal from the scan driver to the organic display device utilizing clock
signal inputs." Id. 8.
Appellants contend that Chung "would not operate as intended if the
progressive signals produced thereby were not partially overlapped, as
taught by Chung." Reply Br. 2 (citing App. Br. 5---6). Appellants contend
the theoretical changes, suggested by the Examiner, would amount to a
5
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
"substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements." Id. (citing MPEP
2143.0l(VI) (quoting in re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (Fed. Cir. 1959) (The
court reversed the rejection holding the "suggested combination of
references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the
elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic
principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to
operate.").
We agree with the Appellants that the combination of Chung and Lee
would require "substantial reconstruction" and "affect the principle of
operation" disclosed in Chung, and that the claims of the current application
would not have been obvious over Chung in view of Lee.
To change the clock signals of Chung as suggested in the rejection
would require substantial reconstruction because of the interdependence of
stages and the cascading nature of the overlapping clock signals of Chung as
shown in Fig. 4 are required for the operating of the organic light emitting
display device. The combination of the references would also change
Chung's "principle of operation," which is directed to "a stage circuit ...
capable of concurrently or progressively supplying scan signals" (Abstract).
If the clock signals were not overlapping, it would make Chung inoperable
by allowing the stage circuit incapable of concurrently or progressively
supplying scan signal, and "such a change in a reference's 'principle of
operation' is unlikely to motivate a person of ordinary skill to pursue a
combination with that reference." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322; In re Ratti,
270 F.2d 810; Plas-Pakindustries, Inc. v. Sulzer MixpacAg. Thus, for these
reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs.
6
Appeal2018-001509
Application 14/158,709
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
7