Ex Parte Shim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

11798125 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111798, 125 05/10/2007
9629 7590 08/01/2016
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yeon Shim Shim
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.
054358-5281 2759
EXAMINER
OKEBATO, SAHLU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
patents@morganlewis.com
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal2015-004036
Application 11/798, 125
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEON SHIM SHIM,
HYUNG UK JANG,
and
SANG HYUCK BAE
Appeal2015-004036
Applicationl 1/798, 125
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15-17, 20, and 22-24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21,
and 25 have been canceled. We REVERSE2.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies LG Display Co., Ltd, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 22, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed January 6, 2015, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
November 7, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed January 14, 2014,
1
Appeal2015-004036
Application 11/798, 125
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellants' invention relates to providing multi-touch recognition
capabilities to a display device. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A display device having a multi-touch recognition
function, comprising:
a display panel for displaying display data representative
of a display image;
a plurality of cameras disposed at an edge of the display
panel;
a processor that detects a touch area using at least first and
second images captured by two cameras of the plurality of
cameras, respectively, the touch area being located on a
touchable side of the display panel;
a controller synchronized with the processor to control the
displaying of a background image on the display panel and the
capture of the first and second images by the processor,
at least one non-reflective member in such a spatial
relationship with a corresponding each of the plurality of
cameras as to prevent an optical interference from an incident
light; and
a bracket for receiving the display panel, the plurality of
cameras and the at least one non-reflective member,
wherein a first camera of two cameras captures the first
image of the display panel and a second camera of two cameras
captures the second image of the display panel, respectively, and
the processor compares each of the first and second captured
images with a displayed image to detect the touch area, and
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed May 10, 2007, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2015-004036
Application 11/798, 125
wherein the controller synchronizes the first and second
cameras to capture the first and second images substantially
simultaneously,
wherein the at least one non-reflective member includes
one of a black layer, an anti-reflector, and first and second
polarizing filters which are deposited, the optical absorption axes
of which cross each other, and
wherein the at least one non-reflective member is
substantially in front of the corresponding each of the plurality
of cameras and is lifted upward as much as a designated height
from a surface of the display panel, and
wherein the bracket has protrusions at an inner side facing
the edges of the display panel, and
wherein the plurality of cameras are disposed on the
protrusions and the at least one non-reflective member is
overlapped with the edge of the display panel,
wherein the protrusions are parallel to the display panel,
and
wherein a bending portion of the bracket covers a top of
the at least one non-reflective member.
References Relied on by the Examiner
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hirabayashi
Morrison
Morrison II
US 2001/0022579 Al
US 6,803,906 Bl
US 2005/0077452 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Sept. 20, 2001
Oct. 12, 2004
Apr. 14, 2005
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15-17, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morrison and Hirabayashi. Final
Act. 2-13; Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2015-004036
Application 11/798, 125
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morrison, Hirabayashi, and Morrison II. Final Act. 13-
14; Ans. 3.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Morrison and
Hirabayashi teaches or suggests "wherein a bending portion of the bracket
covers a top of the at least one non-reflective member," as recited in
independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claim 12?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner's rejections cannot be sustained.
The Examiner finds that Morrison does not teach "wherein a bending
portion of the bracket covers a top of the at least one non-reflective
member," as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in
independent claim 12. Final Act. 4. The Examiner, instead, finds that
Hirabayashi teaches that recitation and, more specifically, points to Figure
9A. Id. at 5, 7. The Examiner further finds "considering the shielding plate
being adjustable, and the configuration of the optical unit of figs. lB, 9A and
9B, the bracket module including the protrusion part with bending portion
and comer portion of frame 105 thus as shown in the figures, the bracket
module clearly covers the shielding plate 802." Ans. 4.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings. App. Br. 13, 14. More
specifically, Appellants contend that "shielding plate 802 is spaced away
from the identified 'Bending portion,' and its top rises above that of element
4
Appeal2015-004036
Application 11/798, 125
105." Id. at 14; see also Reply Br. 3 ("shielding plate 802 is apart from the
frame 105, with a height greater than that of the frame 105"). For the
reasons below, on this record, we agree with Appellants' contentions.
First, we consider the Examiner's finding that in Figures lB, 9A, and
9B of Hirabayashi "the bracket module clearly covers the shielding plate
802." Ans. 4. We find that Figure lB of Hirabayashi does not illustrate
"shielding plate 802," but instead illustrates "reflecting section 103."
Hirabayashi i-f 39, Fig. lB. We also find that Figure 9A of Hirabayashi
illustrates two shielding plates 802 along portions of frame 105 that do not
comprise the bending portion. Hirabayashi Fig. 9A. Additionally, we find
that in both Figures 9 A and 9B of Hirabayashi, shielding plate 802 is
depicted as higher than frame 105. Id. at Figs. 9A, 9B.
Second, we consider the Examiner's finding that Hirabayashi teaches
the shielding plate is adjustable. Ans. 4. We find that Hirabayashi's
teaching of the ability to adjust the plate is not sufficient to teach or suggest
adjusting the plate in a particular manner i.e., such that "a bending portion of
the bracket covers a top of the at least one non-reflective member," as
recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in claim 12.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because each of dependent claims 3, 6,
11, 15-17, 20, and 22-24, depend directly or indirectly, from independent
claim 1 or 12 and, as applied by the Examiner, Morrison II does not remedy
the deficiencies of Morrison and Hirabayashi, we also reverse the rejections
of dependent claims 3, 6, 11, 15-17, 20, and 22-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2015-004036
Application 11/798, 125
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6