Onoyama, Yusuke et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 17, 2019

14289259 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2019)

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.
14/289,259 05/28/2014 Yusuke Onoyama 880001-5795-US00 5675
134795 7590 10/17/2019
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
GYAWALI, BIPIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2019 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
sbjames@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUSUKE ONOYAMA, JUNICHI YAMASHITA, and
NAOBUMI TOYOMURA
____________

Appeal 2019–000491
Application 14/289,259
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge
WEINSCHENK.

Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge HOMERE.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 11–21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a display device, a driving method for a
display device and an electronic apparatus.” Spec. 1:11–18. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A display device comprising:
a pixel array unit that is formed by disposing pixel circuits
that include a P-channel type drive transistor that drives a light-
emitting unit, a sampling transistor that applies a signal voltage,
a light emission control transistor that controls light emission and
non-light emission of the light-emitting unit, a storage capacitor
that is connected between a gate electrode and a source electrode
of the drive transistor and an auxiliary capacitor that is connected
to the source electrode of the drive transistor; and
a drive unit that, at a time corresponding to a beginning of
a threshold correction period, performs driving that respectively
applies a first voltage and a second voltage to the source
electrode of the drive transistor and the gate electrode thereof,
the difference between the first voltage and the second voltage
being less than a threshold voltage of the drive transistor, and
subsequently performs driving that applies a standard voltage
that is used in threshold correction to the gate electrode in a state

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 Sony Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

3
in which the source electrode of the drive transistor has been set
to a floating state,
wherein the sampling transistor is in a conducting state
during the entirety of the threshold correction period, and
wherein a capacitance value of the storage capacitor is
greater than or equal to a capacitance value of the auxiliary
capacitor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Omoto U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2013/0057457 A1
Mar. 7, 2013
Kim U.S. Patent No. 8,049,684 B2 Nov. 1, 2011
Yoon U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2011/0309362 A1
Dec. 22, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9, 11, and 14–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Omoto and Kim. Final Act. 3–7.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Omoto, Kim, and Yoon. Final Act. 7–8.
OPINION
Each independent claim recites “a storage capacitor,” “an auxiliary
capacitor,” and “wherein a capacitance value of the storage capacitor is
greater than or equal to a capacitance value of the auxiliary capacitor.” The
Examiner asserts that Omoto teaches a storage capacitor and an auxiliary
capacitor. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges, though, that “Omoto
does not explicitly disclose wherein a capacitance value of the storage
capacitor is greater than or equal to a capacitance value of the auxiliary
Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

4
capacitor.” Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on Kim to compensate for that
deficiency. Id. Specifically, the Examiner cites to column 8, lines 65–67 of
Kim (id.), which teaches that “the capacitance of the storage capacitor Cst is
larger than that of the auxiliary capacitor Caux” (Kim, 8:65–67). The
Examiner then provides a rationale for combining the teachings of Omoto
and Kim. Final Act. 4. Namely, the Examiner cites to column 3, lines 56–
67 of Kim as evidence that “[i]t would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to have a storage
capacitor larger than an auxiliary capacitor in Omoto’s device as taught by
Kim in order to stably store the data signals.” Id.
Appellant argues that the portion of Kim cited by the Examiner
“makes clear that the alleged stable storing of data signals is entirely
unrelated to the presence or capacitance value of any auxiliary capacitor.”
App. Br. 12. Appellant points out that, according to Kim, “this alleged
benefit is realized only where ‘the capacitance of each of the data line
capacitors Cdata11–Cdatamk is set to be larger than that of a storage capacitor
Cst.’” Id. Thus, Appellant concludes that “the Examiner’s proposed
motivation to modify Omoto in view of Kim is entirely unrelated to the
proposed modification.” Id.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. The Examiner correctly
points out that column 8, lines 65–67 of Kim teaches that the capacitance of
the storage capacitor Cst is larger than that of the auxiliary capacitor Caux,
as recited in the independent claims of the present application. Final Act. 4.
However, to show a rationale for combining the teachings of Omoto and
Kim, the Examiner relies on a different portion of Kim. Id. As discussed
above, the Examiner cites to column 3, lines 56–67 of Kim, and states that
Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

5
“[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the
time of the invention, to have a storage capacitor larger than an auxiliary
capacitor in Omoto’s device as taught by Kim in order to stably store the
data signals.” Id.
The problem with the Examiner’s proffered rationale is that column 3,
lines 56–67 of Kim only discusses the capacitance of the data line
capacitors and the storage capacitor, and only indicates that setting the
capacitance of the data line capacitors greater than the capacitance of the
storage capacitor provides the benefit of stably storing data signals. The
cited portion of Kim does not mention the auxiliary capacitor, and does not
indicate that setting the capacitance of the storage capacitor greater than the
capacitance of the auxiliary capacitor provides the benefit of stably storing
data signals. In other words, the cited evidence does not support the
Examiner’s proffered rationale for combining the teachings of Omoto and
Kim. As a result, the Examiner does not show sufficiently that it would
have been obvious to combine the teachings of Omoto and Kim.
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20. Because claims 2–9, 11–18,
and 21 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–9, 11–18, and 21.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–9 and 11–21 is
reversed.
Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–9, 11,
14–21
103 Omoto, Kim 1–9, 11,
14–21

12, 13 103 Omoto, Kim,
Yoon
1–9, 11,
14–21

Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–
21

REVERSED

Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

7
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision reversing the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9 and 11–21.
As noted by the majority opinion, the Examiner correctly points out
that:
[C]olumn 8, lines 65–67 of Kim teaches that “the capacitance
of the storage capacitor Cst is larger than that of the auxiliary
capacitor Caux,” as recited in the independent claims. Kim, 8:65–67.
… to show a rationale for combining the teachings of Omoto and
Kim, the Examiner relies on a different portion of Kim. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner cites to column 3, lines 56–67 of Kim, and states that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at
the time of the invention, to have a storage capacitor larger than an
auxiliary capacitor in Omoto’s device as taught by Kim in order to
stably store the data signals.” Id.

Dec. 4.
The majority, however, characterizes as problematic the Examiner’s
proffered rationale to combine different portions of Kim discussing the
capacitance of the data line capacitors and the storage capacitor, the
capacitance of the data line capacitors greater than the capacitance of the
storage capacitor provides the benefit of stably storing data signals. Id.
Because the cited portion of Kim does not mention the auxiliary capacitor,
the majority Decision finds error in the Examiner’s rejection. See id. From
that finding of fact and ultimate conclusion of nonobviousness, I take
exception.
The majority appears to have bought into Appellant’s argument,
which it addresses Kim and Omoto individually, as opposed to the
combination thereof relied on by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

8
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”). As discussed above, the Examiner relies on
Omoto, not Kim, to teach an auxiliary capacitor that is connected to the
source electrode of the drive transistor. Final Act. 3. Although the reason
for combining the references as identified by the Examiner may not be
directed to the comparison of storage capacitor and auxiliary capacitor, it is
undisputed that the combination of references teaches all the claim elements
required for the display device. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan,
being a creative individual, would have been able to fit the cited teachings of
Kim and Omoto together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in the
claimed display device. Further, although it may be necessary for an
Examiner to identify a reason for modifying the familiar elements obtained
from the prior art in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, the
identification of such a reason is not a sine qua non requirement. So long as
the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to substantiate the obviousness rejection, such a conclusion is
proper. In this case, the afore-cited rationale provided by the Examiner is
more than just a mere conclusory statement. In my view, such a statement
suffices as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the
proffered combination. As noted above, the case law allows the Examiner to
look to the state of the prior art, including the knowledge of the ordinarily
skilled artisan, to arrive at such a reason for combining the known elements
of the prior art. Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon widely
available knowledge to arrive at an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to support the proffered combination is proper.
Appeal 2019-000491
Application 14/289,259

9
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–9 and 11–21.