Ex Parte Chung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

10844544 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WOO-JOON CHUNG, JIN-SUNG KIM,
KYOUNG-HO KANG, and SEUNG-HUN CHAE
____________

Appeal 2010-007747
Application 10/844,544
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007747
Application 10/844,544

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 19-23, 25, 28, 30, 32-35, 37-40, and 42,
which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method for driving a plasma display panel, which includes a first
space defined by a scan electrode and a sustain electrode, the method
comprising:
in one subfield,
applying a first voltage to the scan electrode to generate a discharge
between the scan electrode and the sustain electrode in the first space;
floating the scan electrode after applying the first voltage; and
repeating the steps of applying the first voltage and floating the scan
electrode a predetermined number of times.

Prior Art
Lee US 2003/0117384 A1 June 26, 2003
Nagao US 6,653,993 B1 Nov. 25, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 19-23, 25, 28, 30, 32-35, 37-40, and 42 stand
rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 11/115,360 and
Nagao.
Appeal 2010-007747
Application 10/844,544

3
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 33-35, 37-40, and
42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee
and Nagao.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Claim 1 recites “repeating the steps of applying the first voltage and
floating the scan electrode a predetermined number of times.” The
Examiner finds that copending ’360 Application teaches “applying the first
voltage and floating the scan electrode” and Nagao teaches “repeating the
steps . . . a predetermined number of times.” See Ans. 5, 10. Appellants
contend that the Examiner carves the “repeating” limitation into two discrete
elements, then examines the two elements in isolation. According to
Appellants, when the limitation “repeating the steps of applying the first
voltage and floating the scan electrode a predetermined number of times” as
recited in claim 1 is considered as a whole, this limitation is not taught by
the combination of the copending ’360 Application and Nagao. Br. 10-11.
“[W]hile an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence that
supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may include recourse
to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary
skill that do not necessarily require explication in a reference or expert
opinion.” Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2009). The claim as a whole simply recites repeating steps taught
by the copending ’360 Application. We find that “repeating the steps”
taught by the copending ’360 Application “a predetermined number of
Appeal 2010-007747
Application 10/844,544

4
times” is one of the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1330-31.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 19-23, 25, 28, 30,
32-35, 37-40, and 42 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting.

Section 103 rejection
Appellants contend that Lee does not teach the limitation “floating the
scan electrode after applying the first voltage.” Br. 12-13. Appellants’
contention is inconsistent with the teachings of Lee. See Abstract; ¶¶ 20, 21,
52, 53, 71, 72, 74, 75, 80, 87, 90, 92, 103, 109; see also Figs. 5, 6.
Appellants have not provided a definition of “floating the scan electrode
after applying the first voltage” that excludes keeping the electrode in a
floating state, as taught by Lee.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 23,
25, 28, 30, 33-35, 37-40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 19-23, 25, 28, 30, 32-35, 37-
40, and 42 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 11/115,360 and
Nagao is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 23, 25, 28, 30,
33-35, 37-40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lee and Nagao is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-007747
Application 10/844,544

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

babc