Ex Parte Nagano et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

11061532 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHINGO NAGANO, YUICHI MASUTANI,
and HISAHARU OURA
___________

Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, HUNG H. BUI, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532

2
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an in-plane switching (“IPS”) liquid
crystal display (Spec., page 1, ll. 3-5) with a reduced error electric field (or
cross talk) and high quality of display (Spec., page 8, ll. 13-15).

Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A liquid crystal display apparatus comprising:

plural gate wirings formed on a substrate;

source wirings intersecting with the gate wirings through an
insulating film;

switching elements connected to the source wirings;

pixel electrodes connected to the source wirings through the
switching elements, to which pixel potentials are inputted
according to a driving voltage for driving liquid crystals; and

common electrodes, disposed opposite to the pixel electrodes
and adapted so that a common potential is inputted thereto,

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha.
2 Claims 5 and 8 were cancelled.
Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532

3
wherein a scanning signal is inputted to the gate wirings so that
one horizontal period of the liquid crystal display apparatus has
a write time, in which the pixel potential is written to the pixel
electrode, and a non-write time in which the pixel potential is
not written to the pixel electrode,

wherein the pixel potential is inputted to the source wiring in
the write time, and an electric potential being closer to the
common potential than the pixel potential is inputted to the
source wiring in the non-write time, and

wherein the liquid crystal display apparatus is an in-plane
switching liquid crystal display apparatus, which drives liquid
crystals horizontally to the substrate according to an electric
field generated by the pixel potential of the pixel electrode and
the common potential of the common electrode.

Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakajima (Japanese Application JP2000010074
A), Nanno (US Patent 5,986,631), and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art
(AAPA). (Ans. 4.)

2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nakajima, Nanno, AAPA, and Hirai (US Patent 5,434,599).

3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakajima, Nanno, AAPA, and Suzuki (US Patent
6,583,839).

Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the claim limitation “wherein the liquid
crystal display apparatus is an in-plane switching liquid crystal display
apparatus, which drives liquid crystals horizontally to the substrate
according to an electric field generated by the pixel potential of the pixel
electrode and the common potential of the common electrode” as recited in
claim 1 is not taught or described by the combination of prior art cited by the
Examiner. (App. Br. 9-12.) Appellants’ contentions present us with the
issue of whether the disputed claim limitation defines a patentable
distinction over Nakajima, Nanno, and AAPA.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 9-12) that the combination of Nakajima, Nanno, and
AAPA, fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation recited in claim 1.
Appellants first contend that Nakajima and Nanno disclose vertical
method active-matrix liquid crystal display. (App. Br. 10.) Specifically,
Appellants argue that Nakajima discloses the use of a vertical electric field
method LCD (TN method LCD), which applies a voltage to the liquid
crystal between opposing electrodes so that the directions of the electric field
and the alignment behavior between the claimed invention and Nakajima are
completely different. (App. Br. 10-11.) According to Appellants, the
structure and the effect of driving potential are completely different between
the vertical electric field method and the horizontal electric field
method. Thus, Appellants submit that the driving method of a vertical
electric field method and those of a horizontal electric field method are not
all applicable or functional with respect to the other. (App. Br. 13.)
Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532

5
However, the Examiner finds that the IPS method (horizontal electric
field method) disclosed in AAPA as combined with Nakajima and Nanno
teaches every element of claim 1. (Ans. 5-6.) Further, we note that Exhibit
B (submitted with App. Br., representing the AAPA) illustrates certain
crystals lined up horizontally. Claim 1 does not require that all crystals be
lined up horizontally, nor does the claim require that the entire field of
crystals be driven horizontally. Thus, the horizontally lined up crystals of
the AAPA, as illustrated in Exhibit B, fall squarely within the scope of claim
1. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants further contend that there is no evidence supporting the
interchangeability between the vertical electric field method active matrix
display and a horizontal electric field method active matrix display, and that
the Examiner incorrectly cites to references Tsuda3 and Sato4 in an attempt
to show that one of ordinary skill could use similar driving methods in either
a vertical method or in-plane switching method. (App. Br. 12.) However,
the Examiner finds that Tsuda and Sato are merely suggestive to one of
ordinary skill in the art that it would be obvious to apply a same driving
method to either of a vertical electric field LCD or a horizontal electric field
LCD. (Ans. 11.) Further, Appellants acknowledge that “Tsuda and Sato do
not disclose that all vertical and horizontal electric field driving methods can
be applied to both electric field methods, but rather discloses that only a few
driving methods can be applied to both.” (Reply Br. 1.) In other words,
Tsuda and Sato provide an example of at least some driving methods applied

3 US Patent 7,321,353.
4 US Patent 7,167,154.
Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532

6
to both vertical and horizontal electric fields. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Appellants finally contend that rather than decrease cross talk,
Nakajima intends to prevent a fixing of the disinclination by applying Vcom
to the source wiring and to provide a display with high surface pressure
resistance. (App. Br. 11.) According to Appellants, if Nakajima was
directed to decreasing the cross talk, the design would have to be modified
so that an average potential of the pixel electrode is supplied to the source
wiring, and therefore, Nakajima does not contemplate a decrease in the cross
talk. (App. Br. 11.)
However, the Examiner explains that Nakajima (with Nanno) need not
solve the same problem addressed by Appellants (i.e., reduction of cross-
talk) because the question at hand is whether one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to use the
driving method of Nakajima (as modified by Nanno) in an IPS or horizontal
electric field type LCD instead of a vertical electric field type LCD. (Ans.
10.) The Examiner also finds that AAPA teaches that the IPS method
provides the advantage of a wider viewing angle, thereby providing the
motivation to arrive at the method of Nakajima (as modified by Nanno) used
in a horizontal electric field method (IPS) instead of the vertical electric field
method. (Ans. 10.) Moreover, the Examiner finds that the claim only
requires an in-plane switching liquid crystal display apparatus, and does not
require reduction in cross talk. (Ans. 12.) Therefore, obviousness is not
predicated upon the reduction in cross talk in question, but rather on a reason
for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nakajima, Nanno, and
AAPA. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of
Appeal 2010-010958
Application 11/061,532

7
obviousness. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Nakajima, Nanno, and AAPA teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation recited in independent claim 1.
Appellants have not presented substantially different arguments for
independent claims 6, 9, and 10, which require the same disputed claim
limitations as claim 1. Similarly, Appellants have not presented substantive
arguments addressing the limitations of dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, and
12, thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12 under
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-12 under
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc