Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2018

13865326 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/865,326 04/18/2013
9629 7590 11/26/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MinjicLEE
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.
065543-5345 2926
EXAMINER
TEETS,MARKD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2018 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 MINJIC LEE, SEEUNG LEE, and
BYUNGHYUN LEE
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims
1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-19, 21, 22, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a liquid crystal display and method for
manufacturing the same. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A liquid crystal display comprising:
a display panel including vertical lines, horizontal lines,
and pixels; and
a driver integrated circuit (IC) configured to supply a
data voltage and a gate pulse to the pixels through the vertical
lines,
wherein the vertical lines include vertical data lines to
which the data voltage is supplied, vertical gate lines to which
the gate pulse is supplied, and vertical common voltage lines to
which a common voltage is supplied,
wherein the horizontal lines include horizontal gate lines
which are connected to the vertical gate lines via connection
portions and receive the gate pulse through the vertical gate
lines,
wherein vertical distances between respective connection
portions and the driver IC increase as horizontal distances
1 The real party in interest is identified as LG Display Co., Ltd. Appeal
Brief of May 17, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action of December 19, 2016 ("Final Act."). In this opinion,
we also refer to the Examiner's Answer of November 27, 2017 ("Ans.") and
the Reply Brief of January 26, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
between the respective connection portions and the middle of
the display panel decrease,
wherein only one vertical gate line is positioned between
a first pixel and a second pixel which are horizontally adjacent
each other,
wherein only one vertical data line is positioned between
a third pixel and a fourth pixel which are horizontally adjacent
each other, and
wherein only one vertical common voltage line is
positioned between a fifth pixel and a sixth pixel which are
horizontally adjacent each other.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 22-23).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Lee
Chiang
Min
Song
Kim
Sasaki
US 2010/0109994 Al May 6, 2010
US 2010/0171687 Al Jul. 8, 2010
US 2011/0007257 Al Jan. 13, 2011
US 2013/0093657 Al Apr. 18, 2013
US 2013/0113766 Al May 9, 2013
US 2009/0059110 Al Mar. 5, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 13, 21, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lee and Kim.
Final Act. 2.
Claims 4, 11, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lee, Kim, and Song. Final Act.
11, 17.
3
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lee, Kim, Song, and Min. Final Act.
12.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lee, Kim, and Lim. Final Act. 13.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiang in view of Lee, Kim, Song, and Sasaki. Final Act.
14.
Claims 16-19 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Sasaki, Song, Lee, and Kim.
Final Act. 18.
OPINION
Obviousness (Claim 1 )3
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Chiang teaches
various limitations of claim 1 including the limitation of "only one vertical
gate line is positioned between a first pixel and a second pixel which are
horizontally adjacent each other." Compare Appeal Br. 11-15, with Final
Act. 3. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Lee teaches
that "only one vertical data line is positioned between a third pixel and a
fourth pixel which are horizontally adjacent each other." Compare Appeal
Br. 11-15, with Final Act. 4. Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner's
finding that Lee further teaches that "only one vertical common voltage line
3 Appellants do not present separate arguments for independent claims 12
and 16 as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, and
25 and they stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal Br. 18; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
4
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
is positioned between a fifth pixel and a sixth pixel which are horizontally
adjacent" each other. Compare Appeal Br. 11-15, with Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue, however, that the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claim 1 as obvious because the skilled artisan would not have
modified Chiang to include Lee's feature of having "only one vertical
common voltage line" which "is positioned between a fifth pixel and a sixth
pixel which are horizontally adjacent each other". Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants argue, without supporting evidence or sufficient explanation, that
"such a vertical common voltage line would necessarily be positioned"
either with a vertical data line or a vertical gate line. Id.
From the outset, we note that claim 1 reciting "comprising" is an
open-ended claim. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The transition 'comprising' in a method claim
indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.").
Claim 1 requires no more than "only one vertical common voltage line" that
"is positioned between a fifth pixel and a sixth pixel which are horizontally
adjacent each other" and does not preclude other types of vertical lines to be
positioned thereof. Appellants' argument that "this vertical common voltage
line would fail to be the only vertical line positioned between horizontally
adjacent pixels of the display panel, as required by claim 1" (Appeal Br. 12)
is not directed to limitations recited in claim 1 because claim 1 does not
recite the vertical common voltage line being "the only vertical line" so
positioned. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(unclaimed features cannot impart patentability to claims).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight in combining the references because neither references teaches any
5
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
"advantage[s] associated with 'only one vertical signal line ... included
between two horizontally adjacent pixels." Id. at 15-16. "[W]hen a patent
claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,416 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-
51 (1966)).
In this case, the "only one vertical common voltage line" limitation is
undisputedly described in Lee. Compare Appeal Br. 11-15, with Final Act.
4. "[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of
elements of prior art is obvious," the answer depends on "whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. As the Examiner
points out, "both Chiang and Lee only include one vertical signal line
between any two horizontally adjacent pixels, and it would obvious to them
to retain this feature[.]" Ans. 4. While Appellants disagree with the
Examiner and assert that "Chiang simply cannot accommodate" such a
modification "because vertical lines already exist between each of Chiang's
horizontally adjacent pixels," the record before us does not include a clear
explanation as to what Appellants mean "by accommodate." Appeal Br. 16.
Appellants do not support their attorney argument with evidence showing
that the proposed combination would be in inoperable or unsatisfactory. See
Reply Br. 3. "Attorneys' argument is no substitute for evidence." Johnston
v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appellants also do
not respond to the Examiner's reasoning that the skilled artisan "would have
been capable" of reconfiguring the prior art teachings to arrive at claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
Compare Ans. 5, with Reply Br. 1-3, Appeal Br. 11-16. "If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation [ of a known work],
§ 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. "[I]f a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill." Id.
As to Appellants' argument directed to "specific advantages not found
in the references," it is unclear whether the argument attempts to show
unexpected results. See Appeal Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 4. Because
Appellants cite to the specification but do not explain why these citations
show results that may be considered unexpected as compared to the closest
prior art, Appellants' argument does not show patentable distinction over the
prior art.
Based on the foregoing, no reversible error has been identified here.
Obviousness (Claims 3 & 19)
For the obviousness rejection of claim 3, the claim limitation at issue
is "the number of pixels positioned on one line of the display panel is 'm',
where m is a positive integer equal to or greater than 2, the number of
vertical lines is 'm. "'
Appellants argue: "As discussed for claim 1, such a configuration [as
recited in claim 3] is impossible in the Examiner's proposed combination of
the reference[.]" Appeal Br. 18. This argument is therefore not persuasive
of reversible error for the reasons provided with regard to claim 1 supra.
We further note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that
"absent any showing of criticality, it would have been an obvious matter of
7
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected any
particular resolution based on the optimal viewing aesthetic for the particular
application of a display." Compare Final Act. 6, with Appeal Br. 18. The
record before us does not identify reversible error in the rejection of claim 3.
The Examiner further notes that Figure 4 of the specification does not
support claim 3. Final Act. 7. Appellants' sole argument is that Figure 4 is
a partial illustration of an embodiment. Reply Br. 4--5 ( citing Spec. ,r 33). 4
The record before us does not clearly include a finding with regard to the
written description support of claim 3 and we do not reach this issue which
is not before us.
Because Appellants do not present arguments separate for claim 19
(see Appeal Br. 19), the rejection of claim 19 is likewise sustained.
Obviousness (Claims 2, 13, & 17)
For the obviousness rejection of claim 2, the limitation at issue is
"wherein one vertical line is positioned between the horizontally adjacent
pixels of the display panel, and wherein a first vertical gate line, a first data
line, a second vertical gate line, a second data line, a third vertical gate line,
4 The specification ,r 33 does not include the discussion of the resolution of a
pixel array being 5760x 1080 as argued by Appellants. Compare Spec. ,r 33,
with Reply Br. 4--5 (citing Spec. ,r 33). Spec ,r 36 provides: "when the
resolution of the pixel array is '5760x1080,' a sum (i.e., the total number of
vertical lines) of the number of vertical data lines, the number of vertical
gate lines, and the number of vertical common voltage lines is 5760."
Appellants' argument does not clearly explain why this passage supports
claim 3 particularly the claim limitation "the number of pixels positioned on
one line of the display" and "the number of horizontal lines in the display
panel."
8
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
a third data line, and a first vertical common voltage line are sequentially
disposed every eight pixels arranged on a same horizontal line." 5
The Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would, based on Chiang,
arrive at the structure recited in claim 2 by "rearranging parts of an invention
[which] involves only routine skill in the art." Final Act. 5---6. Appellants'
argument does not address the Examiner's reasoning in support of the
obviousness rejection of claim 2 but only asserts that there is a "lack of
applied reference." Appeal Br. 19. "If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation [ of a known work], § 103 likely bars its
patentability." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. 418 ("[I]nterrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art, all [ can provide] an apparent reason
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed."). Because the
Examiner has provided "articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (id.) to which
Appellants do not respond. We are therefore not persuaded that reversible
error has been identified here.
Because Appellants do not present arguments separate for claims 13
and 17 (see Appeal Br. 20), the rejection of claims 13 and 17 is likewise
sustained.
5 We note that the specification provides: "One vertical common voltage
line is disposed every eight pixels arranged on the same horizontal line."
Spec. ,r 3 6. Claim 2 as originally filed recites no more than "wherein one
vertical line is positioned between the horizontally adjacent pixels of the
display panel." The record before us does not include the issue of written
description support for the current version of claim 2 and we decline to reach
an issue that is not before us.
9
Appeal2018-002947
Application 13/865,326
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10