Szu-Heng TSENG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2020

13098576 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/098,576 05/02/2011 Szu-Heng TSENG 67507-137 9070
65358 7590 07/27/2020
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, JEFFREY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SZU-HENG TSENG and TZE-CHIEN TSAI
____________________

Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12–14. Appellant has canceled or withdrawn claims 2,
3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Appeal Br. 17–23. We have jurisdiction over the
remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies AU
OPTRONICS CORP. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to “a
pixel circuit and a display panel with an IR-drop (internal-resistance drop)
compensation function.” Spec. ¶ 1. A display panel may be comprised of
an array of pixel circuits, “which are electrically coupled to a current-supply
line I from which an original work voltage OVDD can be supplied to each of
the [] pixel circuits.” Spec. ¶ 3. According to the Specification, the current-
supply line I has a line resistance, which may result in a drop to the real
work voltage applied to the various pixel circuits. Spec. ¶ 6. A reduced
OVDD (due to an internal-resistance drop) applied to a pixel circuit may
cause a lower driving current of the light-emitting device (e.g., an OLED, an
Organic light emitting diode). Spec. ¶ 6. As a result, the light intensity
emitted from a pixel circuit with a reduced OVDD differs (is less than) from
the light intensity emitted from a pixel circuit with a true OVDD applied.
Spec. ¶¶ 6–7. To address the IR-drop, a disclosed embodiment of a pixel
circuit includes a compensation function. Spec. ¶ 8, Fig. 6. According to
the Specification, “the effect of the line resistance of the current-supply line
on the current flowing through the current-driving device can be eliminated
through compensating the data at the data line by a difference value between
the real work voltage and the original work voltage.” Spec. ¶ 39.
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

3
Figure 6 is illustrative and is reproduced below:

Figure 6 illustrates the claimed embodiment of Appellant’s invention.
Spec. ¶ 24; Supp. Appeal Br. 2–6. As shown, level-compensated data is
presented to a first channel end of a first switch (T1), which is part of a
current-control circuit (42) that drives a current-driven device (OLED),
which is connected to a channel end of a second switch (T2) of the current-
control circuit (42). Detecting switch (T3) couples the real working voltage
(OVDD′) to the compensation circuit (44) to adjust the level of the data
(Vdata) appropriately.2

2 We note that, as recited in claim 1, only one channel end of the detecting
switch is electrically coupled to other components of the pixel circuit. That
is, the recited fifth channel end is electrically coupled to third channel end of
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

4
Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of
the subject matter on appeal (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A pixel circuit disposed in a display panel, the pixel circuit
being electrically coupled to a current-supply line, a first control
line, a second control line, and a data line which is for providing
data, and the pixel circuit comprising:
a current-driven device comprising a first end and a
second end, wherein a light is emitted from the current-driven
device while a current is flowing through the current-driven
device from the first end to the second end, and the second end
is electrically connected to a ground;
a current-control circuit for receiving the data from the
data line and storing the received data as driving data according
to a voltage level of the first control line, receiving a work
voltage actually transmitted from the current-supply line, and
controlling a current intensity flowing to the current-driven
device via the current-control circuit from the current-supply line
according to the driving data, the current-control circuit
comprising:
a first switch comprising a control end, a first
channel end and a second channel end, wherein the control
end of the first switch is electrically coupled to the first
control line, the first channel end of the first switch is
electrically coupled to the data line, and the second
channel end of the first switch is electrically coupled to a
data-store node;
a second switch comprising a control end, a third
channel end and a fourth channel end, wherein the control
end of the second switch is electrically coupled to the data-

the second switch, but that the sixth channel end is not described as being
coupled to anything. However, we note that in independent claim 6, “the
sixth channel end of the detecting switch is electrically coupled to the one of
the compensation circuits.” In the event of further prosecution, we leave it
to Appellant to amend claim 1 as appropriate.
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

5
store node, the third channel end of the second switch is
electrically coupled to the current-supply line, and the
fourth channel end of the second switch is electrically
coupled to the first end of the current-driven device;
a detecting switch comprising a control end, a fifth
channel end and a sixth channel end, wherein the fifth
channel end of the detecting switch is electrically coupled
to the third channel end of the second switch of the
current-control circuit to retrieve the work voltage
actually transmitted from the current-supply line, the
control end of the detecting switch is electrically coupled
to the second control line to determine an electrical
conduction between the fifth channel end and the sixth
channel end of the detecting switch; and
a capacitor comprising a third end and an fourth
end, wherein the third end of the capacitor is electrically
coupled to the data-store node, and the fourth end of the
capacitor is electrically coupled to the current-supply line.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 6, 9, and 12–14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12–14 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nathan et al. (US
2007/0008253 A1; Jan. 11, 2007) (“Nathan ’253”); Nathan et al. (US
2007/0195020 A1; Aug. 23, 2007) (“Nathan ’020”); and Kim (US
2007/0040772 A1; Feb. 22, 2007). Final Act. 5–21.

Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

6
ANALYSIS3
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 6, 9, and 12–14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner
maintains this rejection. See Ans. 22–23.
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Instead, Appellant identifies as the only
grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal as the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12–14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal
Br. 10.
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect
to that ground of rejection as waived.”). Additionally, “[i]f a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
may summarily sustain it unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the

3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 12, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed
February 22, 2018 (“Supp. Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
May 14, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed September 19,
2017 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellant did not file
a Reply Brief. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are
considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

7
rejection in the examiner’s answer.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
6, 9, and 12–14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Nathan ’253, Nathan ’020, and Kim. Final Act. 5–11. In relevant part, the
Examiner finds Nathan ’253 teaches a current-driven device comprising a
first and second end wherein the second end is electrically connected to
ground. Final Act. 5 (citing Nathan ’253, Fig. 2). The Examiner also finds
Nathan ’253 teaches a second switch having a channel end electrically
connected to the first end of the current-driven device. Final Act. 6–7 (citing
Nathan ’253, Fig. 2). In addition, the Examiner cumulatively finds Nathan
’020 also teaches these claimed components. See Final Act. 8–10. More
specifically, the Examiner finds Nathan ’020 teaches, inter alia, a current-
driven device comprising a first end and a second end wherein the second
end is electrically connected to ground. Final Act. 8 (citing Nathan ’020,
Fig. 7). Additionally, the Examiner finds Nathan ’020 teaches the claimed
second switch having a channel end electrically connected to the first end of
the current-driven device. Final Act. 9 (citing Nathan ’020, Fig. 7).
Appellant asserts Nathan ’253 does not teach the current-driven
device (OLED) connected as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing
Nathan ’253, Fig. 2). In particular, Appellant asserts that Figure 2 of Nathan
’253 does not illustrate a current-driven device (OLED) having a first end
electrically coupled to a (fourth) channel end of a second switch, or a second
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

8
end electrically connected to ground. Appeal Br. 11–12. In addition,
Appellant argues Figure 2 of Nathan ’253 does not teach a second switch
comprising, inter alia, a (third) channel end electrically coupled to the
current-supply line. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues Nathan ’253 fails
to teach a detecting switch comprising, inter alia, a (fifth) channel end
electrically coupled to the (third) channel end of the second switch, which is
electrically coupled to the current-supply line. Appeal Br. 14–15.
Figure 2 of Nathan ’253 is illustrative and is reproduced below:

Figure 2 of Nathan ’253 is an example pixel of the disclosed system.
Nathan ’253 ¶ 12. As shown, current-driven device, OLED (32), comprises
a first and second end, wherein one end is connected to a channel end of
(second) switch T1 (22) and the other end is connected to Vdd.
We agree with Appellant that a second end of the current-driven
device is not (directly) electrically connected to ground. Instead, the cathode
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

9
of OLED (32) is depicted in Figure 2 as being coupled indirectly to ground
through thin film transistor (TFT) switch T1 (22) that is connected in series
with feedback resistor RF 30, as shown within pixel circuit 20. However, as
discussed above, the Examiner makes a series of cumulative findings in the
rejection and finds Nathan ’020 teaches the claimed current-driven device.
See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Nathan ’020, Fig. 7).
Figure 7 of Nathan ’020 is illustrative and is reproduced below:

Figure 7 of Nathan ’020 illustrates a 3-transistor pixel circuit. Nathan
’020 ¶¶ 16, 71–74. As shown (and as relied upon by the Examiner), Figure
7 of Nathan ’020 illustrates a current-driven device (LED, 72) having a
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

10
second end electrically connected to ground and a first end electrically
coupled to a channel end of a second switch (78). See Final Act. 8–9; see
also Ans. 27–28. Additionally, Nathan ’020 illustrates a third switch (80)
(i.e., a “sensing transistor”) for providing VOUT of the pixel circuit. Nathan
’020 ¶¶ 73–74. The Examiner finds third switch (80) teaches or reasonably
suggests the claimed detecting switch. Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 34–35.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings (see, e.g., Final Act. 8) that
Nathan ’020 teaches the claimed current-driven device (72) comprising a
first end electrically coupled to a channel end of a second switch (78) and a
second end electrically connected to ground. In addition, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings (see, e.g., Final Act. 9) that Nathan ’020 teaches the
claimed second switch comprising, inter alia, a (third) channel end
electrically coupled to the current-supply line (i.e., Vdd). See also Nathan
’020 ¶¶ 71–74. Nathan describes the sensing transistor is used to monitor
and extract change of the pixel (i.e., aging of the pixel) for calibration
purposes. See Nathan ’020 ¶¶ 6–7, 73–74. Nathan further describes the
aging “is extracted by monitoring the voltage of the power supply line.”
Nathan ’020 ¶ 58; see also Nathan ’020 ¶¶67–69, Fig. 5.
Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s findings related to Nathan ’020. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
findings are unrebutted. Any arguments Appellant could have made are
therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For the reasons discussed supra, and based on the record before us,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar
reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6,
which recites commensurate limitations and was not argued separately. See
Appeal 2019-006454
Application 13/098,576

11
Appeal Br. 11–15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 9, and 12–14, which depend
directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See Appeal
Br. 11–15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 9, and 12–14
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 12–
14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 9, 12–14 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 6, 9, 12–14
1, 4, 6, 9,
12–14
103(a) Nathan ’253,
Nathan ’020, Kim
1, 4, 6, 9,
12–14

Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6, 9,
12–14

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED