E Ink Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 22, 2021

2020006738 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021)

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. 15/726,864 10/06/2017 Yi LU H-719 7573 26245 7590 12/22/2021 E Ink Corporation Intellectual Property Department 1000 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 EXAMINER MISHLER, ROBIN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2021 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): aberryman@eink.com bbean@eink.com ip@eink.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YI LU, THEODORE A. SJODIN, CHIH-HSIANG HO, and KARL RAYMOND AMUNDSON Appeal 2020-006738 Application 15/726,864 Technology Center 2600 Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as E Ink Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of E Ink Holdings, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006738 Application 15/726,864 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application describes methods for driving electro-optic displays such as bistable electrophoretic displays. Spec. ¶¶ 1–3.2 Claims 1, 2, and 4– 7 are pending. See Claims Appendix filed May 15, 2020. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for driving an electro-optic display having a plurality of display pixels, the method comprising: applying a first set of waveform to a first display pixel, the first set of waveform having at least one active portion configured to affect the optical state of the first display pixel and at least one non-active portion configured not to substantially affect the optical state of the first display pixel; and applying a second set of waveform to a second display pixel, the second set of waveform having at least one active portion configured to affect the optical state of the second display pixel and at least one non-active portion configured not to substantially affect the optical state of the second display pixel; wherein the at least one active portions of the first and second set of waveforms do not overlap in time to reduce a crosstalk effect; and wherein the at least one active portions of the first and second set of waveforms have opposite voltage values. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Miyasaka (US 2006/0139309 A1, published 2 We note the Specification includes two paragraph 1s: a paragraph 001 that states the priority claim, and a paragraph Para 1 quoted herein. See Spec. page 1. Thereafter, the paragraphs are numbered 2 onward. Appeal 2020-006738 Application 15/726,864 3 June 29, 2006) and Amundson (US 2013/0194250 A1, published August 1, 2013). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made by Appellant are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See Appeal Br. 3, 4. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Reduce Crosstalk Appellant argues claim 1 is “patentable over Miyasaka in view of Amundson because they fail to teach or suggest the limitation[] ‘to reduce a cross effect.’” Appeal Br. 11. Particularly, Appellant contends “nothing in Amundson mentions . . . crosstalk,” as “[t]he cited paragraphs and figures are about reduc[ing] the flashness of the display during image updates.” Id. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Amundson, as cited by the Examiner, teaches that “the waveforms for various pixel classes are simply delayed versions of a single basic waveform.” Amundson ¶ 91; Final Act. 3. Although Amundson teaches such delay may “reduce the visual impact of flashing” (Amundson ¶ 92), Appellant does not identify a characteristic of Amundson’s display driving Appeal 2020-006738 Application 15/726,864 4 process that would not reduce crosstalk as claimed. The Examiner’s reasoning that “the time shift disclosed in Amundson would result in the reduction of crosstalk for the display of Miyasaka,” because any such “time shifting the voltage waveforms results in reduction of crosstalk” is reasonable based on the evidence relied upon by the Examiner. Ans. 3, citing Spec. 32 (“One way to reduce such crosstalk and/or voltage shift is by time shift the voltage lists supplied.”). Appellant argues the word “crosstalk” is not present in the references but does not show error in the Examiner’s technical findings. Appeal Br. 11; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212–213 (CCPA 1971) ([T]he mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the cited references teach or suggest “reduce a crosstalk effect” within the meaning of the claim. Opposite Voltage Values Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Miyasaka such that “‘at least one active portions of the first and second set of waveforms have opposite voltage values’, as required by all the present claims.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends, “Miyasaka explicitly teaches against using voltages with opposite values, as the driving voltages in Miyasaka is from 0-10 volts only.” Id. at 12. Appellant further argues the “voltages as recited by the Examiner CANNOT be opposite in values by default,” and “[i]f those two voltages were to have opposite voltage values as suggested by the Examiner Appeal 2020-006738 Application 15/726,864 5 . . . , this would result in . . . NOT applying a Vc at all, that would have rendered Miyasaka’s invention inoperable.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s rejection is in error. First, we note Appellant does not show that Miyasaki teaches away from the combination with Amundson, because Appellant has not identified any portion of Miyasaki that discourages investigation into the invention as claimed. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”) (Citations removed). Further, with respect to Appellant’s inoperability argument, we do not find the Examiner errs in finding one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Miyasaki with Amundson’s teachings of opposite waveforms. See Final Act. 3; Miyasaki Fig. 13; Amundson ¶ 87 (“a conventional balanced pulse pair waveform”). The Examiner finds “Miyasaki discloses having the voltage levels that correspond with following constraint: Vss