Ex Parte Ding

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

11008400 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/008,400 12/09/2004 Hong Ding 9342-238 9595
54414 7590 09/21/2012
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
SHERMAN, STEPHEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2012 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 HONG DING

Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN G. NEW, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 16, 18 through 37, and 39 through 45.
We affirm in part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a liquid crystal display with a
photosensor. See Specification pages 1 through 4, and figures 1A and 1B.
Claims 1 and 14 are representative of the claimed invention under appeal
and reproduced below:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a liquid crystal display having first and second transparent
substrates and a liquid crystal material between the first and second
transparent substrates;
a photosensor on a portion of the first transparent substrate
opposite the second transparent substrate so that the first transparent
substrate is between the photosensor and the second transparent
substrate;
a light configured to provide illumination for the electronic
device wherein the photosensor is shielded from illumination provided
by the light; and
a controller coupled to the photosensor and the light, the
controller being configured to vary an intensity of the illumination
from the light responsive to an intensity of light incident on the
photosensor.

[Cite?]

14. An electronic device comprising:
a display including a transparent substrate having a rectangular
active display area and an inactive display area surrounding the
rectangular active display area;
a photosensor on a portion of the inactive display area of the
transparent substrate outside the rectangular active display area
wherein the photosensor comprises a photoconductive material having
an electrical resistance that varies with varying light intensities
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
3

thereon and wherein a current path through the photosensor is parallel
with respect to a surface of the transparent substrate wherein the
photosensor has a continuous length of the current path that is at least
about half of a length of a side of the rectangular active display area of
the transparent substrate;
a light configured to provide illumination for the electronic
device; and
a controller coupled to the photosensor and the light, the
controller being configured to vary an intensity of the illumination
from the light responsive to variations in the electrical resistance of
the photoconductive material.

REFERENCES
McLaughlin US 5,384,577 Jan. 24, 1995
McCartney US 5,831,693 Nov. 3, 1998
Kondoh US 6,115,091 Sep. 5, 2000
Yamazaki US 2001/0020922 Sep. 13, 2001
Zhang US 6,399,933 B2 Jun. 4, 2002
Wei US 2003/0137485 Jul. 24, 2003
Davis US 6,870,529 B1 Mar. 22, 2005
Yamazaki US 7,068,254 B2 Jun. 27, 2006

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 26, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kondoh in view of McCartney.
Answer 4-7.1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
December 7, 2009.
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
4

The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kondoh in view of McCartney and Wei. Answer 7-8.
The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kondoh in view of McCartney and Davis. Answer 8-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kondoh in view of McCartney and Yamazaki
‘254. Answer 9-12.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 through 6 and 27 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kondoh in view of
McCartney and Yamazaki ‘922. Answer 12-13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 15, 20 through 22, 25, 33, 36,
37, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wei in view of
Zhang and Yamazaki ‘922. Answer 13-17.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kondoh in view of McCartney, Zhang, and Yamazaki
‘922. Answer 17.
The Examiner has rejected claims 18, 19, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wei in view of Zhang, Yamazaki ‘922, and
Kondoh. Answer 18.
The Examiner has rejected claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kondoh in view of McCartney, Wei, and Zhang. Answer
18-19.
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
5

The Examiner has rejected claims 16, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wei in view of Zhang, Yamazaki ‘922, and
Yamazaki ‘254. Answer 19.
The Examiner has rejected claims 39 through 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wei in view of Zhang, Yamazaki ‘922, and
McLaughlin. Answer 19-20.
ISSUES

Rejection of independent claims 1, 26, and the claims dependent
thereupon.

Appellant argues on pages 6 through 8 of the Brief and pages 5
through 8 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection is in error as the
combination renders Kondoh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.2 These
contentions present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that a
skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Kondoh and McCartney such
that a photosensor is shielded from the backlight?

Rejection of independent claims 14, 33, and the claims dependent
thereupon.

Appellant argues on pages 8 through 14 of the Brief and pages 8
through 14 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is
in error. These contentions present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Wei, Zhang and Yamazaki ‘922 teaches a

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 7,
2009, and Reply Brief dated January 26, 2010.
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
6

photosensor wherein the current path is parallel with respect to a surface of
the substrate and has a continuous length of current path that is at least half
the length of the side of the display, as recited in independent claims 14 and
33?
We note Appellant presents additional arguments with respect to the
dependent claims, however, we do not reach these issues as the issue with
respect to independent claims 14 and 33 is dispositive.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of independent claims 1, 26, and the claims dependent
thereupon.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Kondoh and
McCartney such that a photosensor is shielded from the backlight. We adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments on pages 21 and
22 of the Answer. In this response, the Examiner finds that McCartney
teaches a configuration where there is both a shielded and unshielded
photosensor. The Examiner concludes that “McCartney can be properly
combined with Kondoh such that there will still be a photosensor without a
shield for sensing the backlight and a photosensor with a shield for sensing
ambient light.” Answer 22. We concur. Such a combination would not
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
7

destroy the purpose of the photosensor in Kondoh’s device (to observe
transmitted light by the backlight, see col. 14, ll. 63-67) as there would be
one photosensor which is not shielded , along with a second photosensor
which is shielded. We note that representative claim 1 does not recite a
limitation which precludes there being more than one photosensor.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. As Appellant has not
presented separate arguments directed to the rejections of claims 2 through
13, 26 through 32, and 45, we affirm the rejections of these claims for the
same reasons as stated with respect to independent claim 1.

Rejection of independent claims 14, 33, and the claims dependent
thereupon.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments.
We agree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Wei, in view of Zhang and Yamazaki ‘922,
teaches a photosensor wherein the current path is parallel with respect to the
surface of the substrate and has a continuous length of current path that is at
least half the length of the side of the display. Independent claims 14 and
33 each recite a limitation directed to a photosensor with a current path
parallel to the plane of a surface of the transparent substrate, and that the
current path is at least half the length of the side. In response to Appellant’s
arguments, the Examiner states that Zhang is used to teach a sensor element
that is at least half the length of the substrate. Answer 23. While we concur
with the Examiner that the linear sensor unit is at least half the length of the
Appeal 2010-004544
Application 11/008,400
8

substrate, this sensor unit has multiple photosensors arranged in the row and
is to capture image data (see col. 5, ll. 5-25). We do not consider this
teaching to suggest that a photosensor such as discussed in Wei or Yamazaki
‘922 should be extended along at least half of the length of the substrate as
recited in independent claims 14 and 33. Further, the Examiner has not
shown that the other references applied make up for this deficiency.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 14 and 33 or the Examiner’s rejections of claims dependent
thereupon.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 1 through 13, 26 through 32,
and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14
through 16, 18 through 25, 33 through 37, and 39 through 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 16, 18 through 37, and
39 through 45 is affirmed in part.
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).

AFFIRMED IN PART

tj