Ex Parte Dai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 21, 2016

13320544 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/320,544 11/15/2011 50163 7590 WANG&HO 66 HILLTOP ROAD MILLINGTON, NJ 07946 10/25/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y ongping Dai 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. TJBY01-36USP 7558 EXAMINER YANG, NAN-YING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2016 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): georgewang@bei-ocean.com georgewang.hk@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YONGPING DAI, XUHUAI DONG, WEI FAN, and YI FAN Appeal2015-000954 Application 13/320,544 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal2015-000954 Application 13/320,544 Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.52(a)(l) ("Request") on September 26, 2016, for reconsideration of our Decision mailed July 28, 2016 ("Decision"). The Decision affirmed the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-16. We reconsider our decision in light of Appellants' Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the Decision. Appellants argue "the claimed LCOS display chip is for preprocessing raw video signals and sending the processed analog video signals to the LCOS itself where its driver circuit determines whether, based on the signals received, to switch on or switch off a particular pixel via the associated pixel electrodes." Request 1-2. However, none of the claims recite this limitation. Appellants also argue the claimed invention "is for implementing the method of driving the driver circuit-integrated liquid crystal display device." Request. 2. Again, none of the claims recite this limitation. Further, Appellants did not advance these arguments in the Appeal Brief, nor appropriately furnish these arguments in the Reply Brief. "Arguments not raised ... are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section." 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.52(a)(l). Because Appellants have not explained why the new arguments fall into any of these exceptions, we decline to consider them. Appellants have failed to show any matter that was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering our Decision. We deny Appellants' Request to change our Decision. REHEARING DENIED 2