LG Display Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

15158451 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/158,451 05/18/2016 Junghan LEE 002463-5172-01 1668
9629 7590 07/02/2020
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA)
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
patents@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte JUNGHAN LEE and SUNGCHUL KIM
____________

Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–11, 13–17, and 20–28, which
constitute all claims pending in this application.2 Appeal Br. 36–42 (Claims
App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM−IN−PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LG
Display Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Rejection mailed March 12,
2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 5, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed November 2, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

2
INVENTION
The present invention is directed to “a display device with an
integrated touch screen” including “electrodes divided into a plurality of
block type groups and a plurality of data lines” and “a display driver IC
configured to . . . sequentially apply a touch scan signal to each block type
group when the driving mode of the panel is a touch driving mode” and
“apply a data signal to the data lines associated with a corresponding block
type group when the touch scan signal is applied to the corresponding block
type group,” the data signal applied to the data lines having the same phase
as that of the touch scan signal applied to the corresponding block type
group. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 49; Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and is reproduced below.
1. A driver circuit for driving a display panel with an
integrated touch screen, the driver circuit configured to:
apply a common voltage to at least first and second touch
electrodes of the display panel for driving the display panel
during a display driving mode;
apply a touch scan signal to the at least first and second
touch electrodes to sense a touched position with the at least first
and second touch electrodes during a touch driving mode; and
apply a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal
to a first display driving electrode of the display panel
overlapping with the first touch electrode concurrently with
applying the touch scan signal to the first touch electrode, and to
a second display driving electrode of the display panel
overlapping with the second touch electrode concurrently with
applying the touch scan signal to the second touch electrode.

Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
van Lieshout et al. (“van
Lieshout”)
US 2012/0162088 A1 June 28, 2012
Shepelev et al.
(“Shepelev”)
US 2013/0057511 A1 Mar. 07, 2013

REJECTIONS3
Claims 1–11, 13–17, 20–25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 4.
Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20–22, and 24–28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shepelev and van
Lieshout. Final Act. 5–13.

3 The Examiner indicates “[c]laims 5, 15, and 23 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims (and amended to overcome the 112, first paragraph,
scope of enablement rejection above).” Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

4
ANALYSIS
§ 112 Enablement Rejection of
Claims 1–11, 13–17, 20–25, 27, and 28

In support of the § 112, first paragraph rejection of claims 1–11, 13–
17, 20–25, 27, and 28 for failure to comply with the enablement
requirement, the Examiner finds
the specification, while being enabling for applying a signal
having a same phase as the touch scan signal to a data line, does
not reasonably provide enablement for applying a signal having
a same phase as the touch scan signal to a display driving
electrode in general (e.g., a gate line, a storage capacitor line,
etc.). . . .
When discussing applying a data signal having a same phase as
the touch scan signal to the display panel, Applicant’s
specification exclusively refers to “data lines.” . . . However,
Applicant’s specification as filed provides no enabling disclosure
related to “apply[ing] a signal having a same phase as the touch
scan signal” to gate lines, storage capacitor lines, or any other
display driving electrodes other than data lines.

Final Act. 2–3 (emphases added) (citing Spec. ¶¶ 44–50).
Appellant argues the Specification explains the adverse effects of an
initial capacitance formed between overlapping electrodes, and how to
mitigate these adverse effects (i.e., a decrease in touch sensitivity) of such
initial capacitance between electrodes—including touch electrodes and data
lines. Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 10–17, 29, 35–37); Reply Br. 3.
Particularly, the Specification explains that applying the disclosed “signal
having a same phase as the touch scan signal” to a data line reduces the
initial capacitance formed between an overlapping touch electrode and the
data line. Reply Br. 3. Regarding display driving electrodes other than
data lines (such as, e.g., gate lines), Appellant asserts:
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

5
[b]ecause one skilled in the art would have had the above
understandings in view of the present disclosure, he or she would
have readily been able to apply the disclosed “signal having a
same phase as the touch scan signal” (e.g., as recited in claim[] 1
. . .) to the gate electrode(s) or line(s) without undue
experimentation, even though the specific examples disclosed in
the specification apply the signal to a data line. With (a) the
form of the output signal already known, i.e., a “signal having a
same phase as the touch scan signal,” as well as (b) the timing of
the signal in relation to the touch scan signal, see, e.g., paragraph
[0059] of the specification (“[s]imultaneously” with a touch scan
signal), one skilled in the art would have readily been able to
implement the gate driving circuitry needed to apply the signal
[having a same phase as the touch scan signal] to a gate electrode
or line without undue experimentation.

Reply Br. 3–4 (emphases added); see also Appeal Br. 11–12 (“the skilled
artisan would have been enabled by the present disclosure to apply the
‘signal having the same phase as the touch scan signal’ to lines or electrodes
other than the data lines or electrodes, e.g., the gate lines or electrodes, that
overlap with a touch electrode”).
We agree with Appellant. That is, “with the form and timing of the
output signal already known, i.e., a ‘signal having a same phase as the touch
scan signal,’ one skilled in the art would have been able to apply such a
signal to the gate lines or electrodes without undue experimentation.”
Appeal Br. 12. We further note, although the written description (in
Appellant’s Specification) does not provide detailed explanations pertaining
to other display driving electrodes besides data lines, written description and
enablement requirements are separate and distinct under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

6
For example, to comply with the enablement requirement under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, Appellant’s Specification must adequately
teach how to make and how to use a claimed invention throughout its scope,
without undue experimentation. Plant Genetic Sys. N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics
Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In contrast to the enablement
requirement, the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, requires Appellant to “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the
art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the
filing date.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. “The enablement requirement is often
more indulgent than the written description requirement” as “[t]he
specification need not explicitly teach those in the art to make and use the
invention; the requirement is satisfied if, given what they already know, the
specification teaches those in the art enough that they can make and use the
invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Amgen, Inc., v. Hoechst
Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphases
added).
The Examiner has not shown that Appellant’s Specification fails to
teach those in the art to make and use the invention of independent claims 1,
11, and 22 throughout its scope and without undue experimentation, we
decline to sustain the § 112, first paragraph rejection of claims 1, 11, and 22
and their dependent claims 2–10, 13–17, 20, 21, 23–25, 27, and 28 for
failure to comply with the “enablement” requirement.

§ 112 Written Description Rejection of Claims 3 and 13
In rejecting claims 3 and 13 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, the Examiner finds the recitations of “wherein the
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

7
first and second display driving electrodes are . . . gate electrodes” (in claim
3) and “wherein the display driving electrodes are . . . gate electrodes” (in
claim 13) to which “a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal” is
applied (per claim 1 from which claim 3 depends, and per claim 11 from
which claim 13 depends) do not have sufficient written description support
in the Specification. Final Act. 4; Ans. 7–8. Particularly, the Examiner
asserts the Specification only describes applying such a “same phase” signal
to a data line, not to a gate electrode. Final Act. 4.
Original claim 3, however, recited “[t]he driver circuit of claim 1,
wherein the display driving electrode is . . . a gate electrode,” and original
claim 1 recited “apply a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal
to a display driving electrode.” Spec. 14. Also, original claim 13 recited
“[t]he driver circuit of claim 11, wherein the display driving electrode is . . .
a gate electrode,” and original claim 11 recited “applying a signal having a
same phase as the touch scan signal to a display driving electrode.”
Spec. 15. “[O]riginal claims are part of the original [S]pecification,” and
thus are relevant to the extent the “original claim language necessarily
discloses the subject matter that it claims.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (citing
In re Gardner, 480 F.2d 879, 879 (CCPA 1973)); see also In re Wertheim,
541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has
the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in
the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention
defined by the claims.”). Thus, we concur with Appellant that Appellant
possessed display driving electrodes being “gate electrodes” (per claims 3
and 13) to which a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal is
applied.
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

8
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 112, first paragraph
rejection of claims 3 and 13 as failing to comply with the “written
description” requirement.4,5

§ 103(a) Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 11, and 22, and
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6, 8–10, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 25

Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Shepelev and van
Lieshout does not teach or suggest “a first display driving electrode of the
display panel overlapping with the first touch electrode” and “a second
display driving electrode of the display panel overlapping with the second
touch electrode,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–15. Particularly,
Appellant argues “van Lieshout discloses only a single common electrode

4 In the event of any further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner object to
Appellant’s Specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for
the originally claimed subject matter in claims 3 and 13, and request
Appellant to amend the Specification to include the subject matter of
original claims 3 and 13 (i.e., a gate electrode to which a signal having a
same phase as the touch scan signal is applied). See In re Benno, 768 F.2d
1340 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also M.P.E.P. 2163.06.
5 Appellant states this application (15/158,451) is “a continuation application
under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/093,672.” Spec.
¶ 1. However, Application No. 15/093,672 does not disclose the subject
matter of original claims 3 and 13 of this application (15/158,451), i.e., the
subject matter of a gate electrode to which a signal having a same phase as
the touch scan signal is applied. Since a continuation application cannot
include matter not disclosed in the prior-filed non-provisional application,
the Examiner should require Appellant to delete the benefit claim (of this
application) or change the relationship (continuation) of this application
(15/158,451) to continuation-in-part (of 15/093,672), because this
application (15/158,451) contains the subject matter of claims 3 and 13 (i.e.,
a gate electrode to which a signal having a same phase as the touch scan
signal is applied) that is not disclosed in 15/093,672.
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

9
layer 115 (an alleged ‘touch electrode’),” failing to teach or suggest “both a
‘first display driving electrode overlapping with the first touch electrode’
and ‘a second display driving electrode overlapping with the second touch
electrode,’ that are admittedly missing from Shepelev.” Id.
Appellant further argues the combination of Shepelev and
van Lieshout fails to teach or suggest:
apply a signal having a same phase as the touch scan signal to a
first display driving electrode of the display panel overlapping
with the first touch electrode concurrently with applying the
touch scan signal to the first touch electrode, and to a second
display driving electrode of the display panel overlapping with
the second touch electrode concurrently with applying the touch
scan signal to the second touch electrode,

as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13–14, 16–18. Particularly, Appellant
argues the Examiner’s rejection “does not support applying the Vshield
signal of van Lieshout in Shepelev in the specific timing and manner in
which the ‘signal having the same phase as the touch scan signal’ is applied
in claim 1” because Shepelev does not disclose “a large overlap” between
first/second touch electrodes and first/second display driving electrodes to
justify applying van Lieshout’s “same phase” Vshield signal to display
driving electrodes. Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing van Lieshout ¶ 68). Appellant
further asserts the Examiner’s combination of Shepelev and van Lieshout
lacks articulated reasoning because (i) contrary to the Examiner’s rejection
(see Final Act. 7, 19), Shepelev has no need to mitigate parasitic currents
between electrodes, as Shepelev lacks overlapping electrodes that would
cause such parasitic currents, and (ii) “van Lieshout does not specify what
constitutes a ‘large’ overlap area” that would induce parasitic currents.
Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 6–7. We do not agree.
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

10
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 9–15. Particularly, we
agree with the Examiner that placing common electrodes (such as
Shepelev’s touch electrodes/transmitter electrodes 160) to overlap pixel
circuitry (such as Shepelev’s display lines) was well-known in the display
arts. Ans. 9–11, 15. For example, a skilled artisan—viewing Shepelev’s
teaching of touch electrodes 160 covering substantially the entire area of
sensing elements 121 in Figure 2, and also acting as common electrodes that
update pixels in display lines corresponding to the common electrodes—
would have found it obvious that portions of the display lines are overlapped
by the common electrodes that update those display lines. See Shepelev
¶¶ 21 (“driving common electrodes corresponding to pixels in the
screen’s display lines”), 42 (“sensing region 120 overlaps at least part of an
active area of a display screen of the display device 101. . . . input device
100 may comprise substantially transparent sensor electrodes overlaying the
display screen and provide a touch screen interface”), 52 (“transmitter
electrodes 160 comprise one or more common electrodes. . . . In various
embodiments, each transmitter electrode 160 comprises one or more
common electrodes”), 55 (describing “a time period used to update the
pixels 310 of the display line” and “driv[ing] a voltage onto the common
electrode(s) corresponding to the display line”), 57 (“the input device may
use the same common electrodes used to update the pixels of the display
screen to drive transmitter signals” such that “the common electrodes may
serve dual purposes. During a display update period, a common electrode
updates the pixels in the display, but during a capacitive sensing period, the
common electrodes are used as transmitter electrodes”), 58 (“after updating
display lines during time periods A-D, the driver module may pause display
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

11
updating and use time period E to perform capacitive sensing”), 62 (“use one
or more common electrodes to update the pixels in a display line and, before
continuing to update the other display lines in the display frame, perform
capacitive sensing using those same electrodes”), 68 (“During time periods
A-D, the driver module activates one of the common electrodes and updates
the pixels associated with the corresponding display line.”), 90–91 (“display
screen 930 includes a plurality of pixels arranged as one or more display
lines,” and “the hardware of the input device 100 [is operated] to detect
input in the sensing region—e.g., some portion of the display screen 930”),
Figs. 1–3 and 9; Ans. 9–11, 15 (citing Shepelev ¶¶ 46–52, Figs. 1–2, 9);
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Shepelev ¶¶ 55–59, 62, Figs. 3 and 5).
Thus, “pixels with overlapping common electrodes are well-known,”
as recognized by the Examiner. Ans. 11. We, therefore, agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Shepelev (whose common electrode layer
includes multiple common electrodes corresponding to multiple display/data
lines) with van Lieshout (whose display electrodes overlap a corresponding
common electrode) teaches “a first display driving electrode6 of the display
panel overlapping with the first touch electrode” and “a second display
driving electrode of the display panel overlapping with the second touch
electrode” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 9–11.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
“does not support applying the Vshield signal of van Lieshout in Shepelev in

6 With respect to the claim term “display driving electrode,” Appellant
acknowledges that “a data line [as described in the Specification] is an
example embodiment of a ‘display driving electrode’ (recited in claims 1,
11, and 22).” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

12
the specific timing and manner in which the ‘signal having the same phase
as the touch scan signal’ is applied in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 16. Rather, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Shepelev and van Lieshout
teaches the “same phase” limitation of claim 1. Ans. 11–15. Particularly, as
the Examiner finds (and as discussed supra), the combination of Shepelev
and van Lieshout teaches the claimed overlapping touch electrodes and
display driving electrodes; and van Lieshout also teaches that when Vshield
(signal having a same phase as a touch scan signal Vprobe) “is applied to
another conductive structure of the display panel 100, the parasitic currents
from the common electrode layer 115 to said other conductive structure are
mitigated.” See van Lieshout ¶ 68 (emphases added); Ans. 11–14. Thus,
van Lieshout teaches the advantage of providing Vshield “to another
conductive structure” that opposes a common electrode layer. See van
Lieshout ¶ 68, Fig. 2A. Since “Van Lieshout teaches that, during touch
sensing, it is beneficial to provide structures overlapping with the common
electrode layer . . . with the shield signal Vshield,” a skilled artisan would
have recognized the benefit of applying Vshield to display lines’ electrodes
that overlap common touch electrodes 160 in Shepelev. Ans. 12–14. The
benefit is that “parasitic currents from the common electrode layer . . . to
said other conductive structure are mitigated” by applying a Vshield signal
in phase with the common electrode’s touch scan signal. See van Lieshout
¶ 68 (emphases added); Ans. 12–14.
Appellant argues Shepelev’s disclosure does not warrant applying
van Lieshout’s Vshield to display driving electrodes, because Shepelev does
not disclose a “large overlap” between display driving electrode and touch
electrodes. Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing van Lieshout ¶ 68 (discussing “a large
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

13
overlap area”)). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because van
Lieshout teaches Vshield confers an advantage to display panel conductive
structures that oppose a common electrode, but van Lieshout does not
confine this advantage to only structures having “a large overlap area.”
Instead, van Lieshout discloses the Vshield advantage extends to “all
structures in the display that have a large overlap area [with the common
electrode]” as well as to “conductive structures” that induce “parasitic
currents from the common electrode layer.” See van Lieshout ¶ 68; see also
van Lieshout ¶ 24; Ans. 12–14. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
skilled artisan, viewing van Lieshout’s teachings, would recognize that
“providing a [same phase] shield signal to . . . an overlapping conductive
structure [overlapping the common electrode layer to an extent that parasitic
noise reduces the accuracy of touch position determination] would be
beneficial for improving [touch detection] accuracy.” Ans. 13–14. We also
agree with the Examiner that an “overlapping area which measurably affects
touch position accuracy [e.g., by inducing parasitic currents] would be
considered a ‘large overlap area’ by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
(citing van Lieshout ¶¶ 24, 68).
As to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s combination of
Shepelev and van Lieshout lacks articulated reasoning (Appeal Br. 17–18;
Reply Br. 6–7), we find the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning for
applying a shield signal (as taught by van Lieshout) to display lines (taught
by Shepelev), for mitigating parasitic currents between Shepelev’s extensive
common electrodes 160 and the display lines corresponding to those
common electrodes. See Shepelev ¶¶ 55, 58 (describing the “display lines”),
Fig. 2; van Lieshout ¶ 68; Ans. 13–15.
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

14
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Shepelev and van Lieshout teaches applying “a signal having a same phase
as the touch scan signal to a first display driving electrode of the display
panel overlapping with the first touch electrode concurrently with applying
the touch scan signal to the first touch electrode” and to “a second display
driving electrode of the display panel overlapping with the second touch
electrode concurrently with applying the touch scan signal to the second
touch electrode” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 12–15.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Appellant has failed
to clearly distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the
Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 11 (reciting “overlapping”
electrodes and applying “a signal having a same phase as the touch scan
signal”) and 22 (reciting “a signal having a same phase as the touch scan”
being applied to “the first display driving electrode” and to “the second
display driving electrode”) argued for reasons similar to claim 1, and
dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8–10, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 25, for which no
separate arguments are provided. Appeal Br. 33.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 3, 13, and 26
With respect to dependent claim 3 (reciting “[t]he driver circuit of
claim 1, wherein the first and second display driving electrodes are data
electrodes or gate electrodes”), claim 13 (reciting “[t]he driver circuit of
claim 11, wherein the display driving electrodes are data electrodes or gate
electrodes”), and claim 26 (reciting “[t]he driver circuit of claim 22, wherein
the first display driving electrode and the second display driving electrode
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

15
are data electrodes”), Appellant submits arguments similar to those for
claims 1, 11, and 22. See Appeal Br. 18–19 (“There is no clear teaching in
van Lieshout of applying Vshield to ‘data electrodes or gate electrodes.’ . . .
paragraph [0068] of van Lieshout does not mention data electrodes or gate
electrodes at all” and “there is no explanation in van Lieshout as to what
constitutes ‘a large overlap area’ such that van Lieshout fails to disclose that
‘all structures that have a large overlap area with common electrode layer
115’ include data electrodes or gate electrodes”), 27, 29–31; Reply Br. 6–7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims
3, 13, and 26, for reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 11, and
22 and for additional reasons provided by the Examiner with respect to
claims 3, 13, and 26. See Ans. 15–19, 28–32. Particularly, we agree with
the Examiner that van Lieshout discloses data electrodes (powered by
display signals Scl1, Scl2, . . . , Scln and corresponding to a touch
electrode/common electrode layer 115) and gate electrodes (powered by
display signals Srw1, Srw2, . . . , Srwm, see, e.g., gate electrode 113a in
Figure 2A), and Shepelev discloses data electrodes (“display lines”)
corresponding to touch electrodes (sensor electrodes 160 that function as
common electrodes to update the display lines). Ans. 15–18 (citing van
Lieshout ¶¶ 51, 55, 58–63, 70–71, Figs. 1–5; Shepelev ¶¶ 27–28, 52, 57,
Abstract); see also van Lieshout ¶ 52 (“The display signals comprise at least
a common display signal Sc and input control signals for the active matrix
layer, e.g. Srw1, . . . and Scl1, . . . respectively.”). More particularly, van
Lieshout discloses gate electrodes (gate electrodes 113a receiving signals
Srwi, see van Lieshout ¶ 59 and Fig. 2A) overlapped by common electrode
layer 115. Ans. 16–19, 23, 29–31; see van Lieshout Fig. 2A. We further
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

16
agree with the Examiner that the skilled artisan, viewing van Lieshout’s
teachings, would recognize that “providing a [same phase] shield signal to
. . . an overlapping conductive structure [overlapping the common electrode
layer to an extent that parasitic noise would reduce accuracy of touch
position determination] would be beneficial for improving [touch detection]
accuracy.” Ans. 17 (citing van Lieshout ¶ 24, 68). Thus, van Lieshout
teaches and suggests that it is beneficial to apply a same phase shield signal
to data electrodes and gate electrodes in a display panel when a common
electrode overlaps the data and gate electrodes. Ans. 16–18, 29–31; see van
Lieshout Fig. 2A.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 13, and 26. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 13, and 26.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7, 17, and 27
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the driver
circuit is further configured to apply the touch scan signal to the at least first
and second touch electrodes through a respective connection line and to
sense a change in the capacitance of the at least first and second touch
electrodes through the respective connection line.” Appeal Br. 37 (Claims
App.). Appellant contends the Examiner fails to provide a basis for
incorporating the alleged “connection line” of van Lieshout into Shepelev
for sensing capacitance. Appeal Br. 20–21. Appellant further asserts
“[i]ncorporating the alleged ‘connection line’ of van Lieshout for both
driving and sensing would result in electrically shorting the transmitter
electrodes 160 and [capacitance sensing] receiver electrodes 170 [of
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

17
Shepelev], thus improperly changing the principle of operation of Shepelev
and improperly rendering Shepelev unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”
Id. at 21–22.
We do not agree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that van
Lieshout discloses a “connection line” (as claimed) between a multiplexer
and common electrode 115 for providing Vprobe and sensing a produced
current Isense, whereby a finger causes a capacitive load in common
electrode layer 115, which changes the AC currents of the common
electrode’s four corners. Final Act. 8 (citing van Lieshout ¶¶ 6, 67, Figs. 1–
4). Particularly, paragraph 67 in van Lieshout describes how to “determine
whether the display panel is touched . . . [and] determine the location where
the display panel is touched” by using an alternating voltage applied at the
common electrode’s corners such that when “a finger 350 or other pointing
device touches the display panel, different currents Isense-a, Isense-b,
Isense-c, Isense-d will capacitively leak away from said corners a–d
depending on the distance from the point (x,y) where the panel is touched to
said corners.” See van Lieshout ¶ 67 (emphasis added). Thus, Van Lieshout
teaches that a touch scan signal (Vprobe) can be applied through a
connection line, and a change in capacitance can be sensed through the
connection line. Final Act. 8.
Incorporating van Lieshout’s connection line into Shepelev does not
require electrically shorting Shepelev’s sensor electrodes 160 and 170 to
each other (as Appellant argues, see Appeal Br. 21). Shepelev itself
contemplates sensing touch via a change in capacitance reflected by
“changes in voltage, current, or the like.” See Shepelev ¶ 32 (“In some
capacitive implementations of the input device 100, voltage or current is
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

18
applied to create an electric field. Nearby input objects cause changes in the
electric field, and produce detectable changes in capacitive coupling that
may be detected as changes in voltage, current, or the like”); see also
Shepelev ¶ 34 (“Some capacitive implementations utilize ‘self capacitance’
(or ‘absolute capacitance’) sensing methods based on changes in the
capacitive coupling between sensor electrodes and an input object,” whereby
“an input object near the sensor electrodes alters the electric field near the
sensor electrodes, thus changing the measured capacitive coupling”); Ans.
20–21 (citing Shepelev ¶¶ 32–35). Thus, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s arguments regarding changing Shepelev’s principle of operation
and rendering Shepelev unsatisfactory.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7.
Claims 17 and 27, also argued by Appellant, include limitations
similar to those of claim 7, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 27
relies upon findings similar to those made for claim 7. Final Act. 11, 13;
Ans. 28, 33. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
of claims 17 and 27.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 27, and further recites “wherein the
connection line overlaps at least one of the first and second display driving
electrodes.” Appeal Br. 42 (Claims App.). That is, claim 28 requires the
connection line—through which the touch scan signal is applied to the touch
electrode(s) and a change in capacitance of the touch electrode(s) is
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

19
sensed—to overlap at least one of the first and second display driving
electrodes.
The Examiner asserts “Fig. 3 of Van Lieshout explicitly shows
connection line Scc overlapping lines Scl and Sstc” and “figs. 4 and 6 of
Van Lieshout clearly show ‘connection line’ Scc-a overlapping lines Srw1–
m (the gate lines) connected to gate driver 230.” Ans. 33–34 (citing
van Lieshout ¶¶ 66, 72, Figs. 3, 4, and 6); Final Act. 13 (citing van Lieshout
¶¶ 52–57, Figs. 1–4).
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s findings are accurate because,
as Appellant explains, van Lieshout’s Figures 3, 4, and 6 are schematic
circuit diagrams that do not disclose the electrical connections’ physical
layout and arrangement. Appeal Br. 32–33; Reply Br. 7–12. For example,
van Lieshout’s Figure 3 (and similarly, Figures 4 and 6) “merely shows how
output signal Scc is supplied, not how a signal line or lines carrying signal
Scc are physically disposed.” Appeal Br. 32–33. On the other hand,
van Lieshout’s Figure 2A (showing a cross-sectional view of a physical
layout of a display panel portion) illustrates “the line carrying Scc (the
alleged ‘connection line’) connecting to an edge of the common electrode
layer 115 outside the display area,” therefore not overlapping lines carrying
signals Scl(i) and Srw(i). Reply Br. 8–12; see van Lieshout Figure 2A.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of claim 28, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claim 28.

Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

20
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1–11, 13–17, 20–25, 27, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement; (2) claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement; and
(3) claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we conclude Appellant
has not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 6–11, 13,
14, 16, 17, 20–22, and 24–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shepelev and van Lieshout.

DECISION SUMMARY
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–
11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20–22, and 24–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, we REVERSE, (1) the Examiner’s final rejection of claims
1–11, 13–17, 20–25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement; (2) claims 3 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement; and (3) claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13–17, 20–
25, 27, 28
112, first
paragraph
enablement 1–11, 13–
17, 20–25,
27, 28
Appeal 2019-000682
Application 15/158,451

21
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3, 13 112, first
paragraph
written description 3, 13
1–4, 6–11, 13, 14,
16, 17, 20–22,
24–28
103(a) Shepelev,
van Lieshout
1–4, 6–11,
13, 14, 16,
17, 20–22,
24–27
28
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–11,
13, 14, 16,
17, 20–22,
24–27
5, 15, 23,
28

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−IN−PART