LG Display Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 7, 2020

14584008 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 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.
14/584,008 12/29/2014 Yoon Jong Choi 29272-30356/US 7738
138354 7590 07/07/2020
LG Display/FENWICK
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2020 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):
FWLGDisplayPatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOON JONG CHOI, KEUK SANG KWON,
SEUNG CHUL PARK, and NAM KYUN CHO
Appeal 2019-002752
Application 14/584,008
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–27. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LG Display
Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002752
Application 14/584,008
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a display device with integrated touch
screen. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A display device with integrated touch screen, the display
device comprising:
a panel configured to include a plurality of electrodes,
wherein the panel is division-driven in a display driving mode
and a touch driving mode during one frame period including at
least a first display period, a second display period, a first non-
display period, and a second non-display period;
a display driver IC configured to apply a common voltage
to the plurality of electrodes during the first and second display
periods of said one frame period in the display driving mode, data
voltages being applied to pixels of the panel during the first and
the second display periods of said one frame period and not being
applied to the pixels of the panel during the first and second non-
display periods of said one frame period; and
an ROIC configured to apply, to the plurality of electrodes,
a touch scan signal for a first duration in the first non-display
period of said one frame period but not apply the touch scan
signal to the plurality of electrodes during the second non-display
period of said one frame period when the touch driving mode is
a first touch driving mode, and apply, to the plurality of
electrodes, the touch scan signal for a second duration in both the
first and the second non-display periods when the touch driving
mode is a second touch driving mode,
wherein the first touch driving mode is an idle driving
mode, and the second touch driving mode is an active driving
mode, and
wherein the first duration is shorter than the second
duration.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US 2012/0050217 A1; published Mar.
Appeal 2019-002752
Application 14/584,008
3
1, 2012), Yamazaki (US 2015/0144920 A1, published May 28, 2015), and
Butler (US 2016/0216833 A1, published July 28, 2016). Final Act. 8.
OPINION
Independent claim 1 recites, in part:
apply, to the plurality of electrodes, a touch scan signal
for a first duration in the first non-display period of said one
frame period but not apply the touch scan signal to the plurality
of electrodes during the second non-display period of said one
frame period when the touch driving mode is a first touch
driving mode, and apply, to the plurality of electrodes, the
touch scan signal for a second duration in both the first and the
second non-display periods when the touch driving mode is a
second touch driving mode,
wherein the first touch driving mode is an idle driving
mode, and the second touch driving mode is an active driving
mode, and
wherein the first duration is shorter than the second
duration.

An example of these features are described in Figure 4 and paragraphs
52–58 and 71–77 of the Specification. The touch scan signal is provided to
the touch electrodes for a first duration in one of the two non-display periods
(when display is OFF), but not in the other one of the two non-display
periods (even though the display is OFF), but where the touch scan signal is
provided to the touch electrodes for a second duration in both of the two
non-display periods (when display is OFF) in the touch active mode, with
the first duration being shorter than the second duration.
Appellant argues that none of the cited references teach or suggest
that the touch scan signal is provided to the touch electrodes for a first
duration in one of the two non-display periods (when display is OFF), but
not in the other one of the two non-display periods (even though the display
Appeal 2019-002752
Application 14/584,008
4
is OFF), but where the touch scan signal is provided to the touch electrodes
for a second duration in both of the two non-display periods (when display is
OFF) in the touch active mode, with the first duration being shorter than the
second duration. Appeal Br. 5, 6.
The Examiner finds that “Noguchi does not appear to teach an idle
period where a touch period is skipped.” Ans. 11. The Examiner finds that
Yamazaki and Butler teach the disputed limitations. Final Act. 11–12; Ans.
11–14. The Examiner explains that Noguchi teaches one frame period
having two touch periods and two display periods. Ans. 14. The Examiner
concludes that skipping a touch period, regardless of the definition given to
the term “one frame period,” is a technique known in the art used to save
power in an integrated touch display. Id.
Upon review of the record, we find that Yamazaki, in Figure 12B and
paragraph 186, teaches skipping touch driving every other frame. Yamazaki
teaches that while displaying 60 frames within 1 second, the touch operation
occurs only in 30 frames within 1 second, skipping the touch operation every
other entire frame. Yamazaki, Fig. 12B, ¶ 186. We agree with Appellant that
the cited portions of Yamazaki therefore do not describe the concept of
skipping touch driving during an idle period within one frame period.
Yamazaki discloses skipping touch driving every other frame, but does not
describe the concept of skipping touch driving during an idle period within
one frame period.
Appellant proffers a construction of “frame” or “frame period” as a
“time period between two consecutive Vsync pulses during [which] the
entire display is refreshed once.” See Reply Br. 2, 6 (citing Choi
Declaration). The Examiner considers this definition unreasonable, but does
not offer another explicit claim construction for “frame” or “frame period.”
Appeal 2019-002752
Application 14/584,008
5
See Ans. 5–8. We need not reach the issue of the nuances of the VESA
standard cited in the Choi Declaration in this appeal, however, because the
claim itself defines one frame period as “including at least a first display
period, a second display period, a first non-display period, and a second non-
display period.” The claim language requires
an ROIC configured to apply, to the plurality of
electrodes, a touch scan signal for a first duration in the first
non-display period of said one frame period but not apply the
touch scan signal to the plurality of electrodes during the
second non-display period of said one frame period when the
touch driving mode is a first touch driving mode.
Figure 12B of Yamazaki does not teach this limitation because Yamazaki
teaches that each period 1F, 2F, . . . 60F in the display element is one full
frame period. Yamazaki ¶¶ 180–186 (“consecutive frame periods”).
Moreover, although Butler teaches power saving by skipping a touch
period, Butler’s system as depicted on page 13 of the Answer shows each
alternative touch period is in a different frame (“Frame n-1,” “Frame n,”
“Frame n+1”). Ans. 13; see also Butler ¶ 104 (“touch sensitive device can
operate every two or three frames”). We agree with Appellant that the cited
portion of Butler therefore does not teach a touch operation is skipped
during a part of a frame but still occurs during another part of that same
frame. Reply Br. 11. Therefore, Butler also does not teach “not apply the
touch scan signal to the plurality of electrodes during the second non-display
period of said one frame period when the touch driving mode is a first touch
driving mode,” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 16.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 16. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of the remaining pending dependent claims.
Appeal 2019-002752
Application 14/584,008
6
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–27 under
§ 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–9, 12–
16, 19–27
103 Noguchi, Yamazaki,
Butler
1, 5–9, 12–
16, 19–27

REVERSED