Ex Parte Dorjgotov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

12794623 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121794,623 06/04/2010 73576 7590 APPLE INC. - Fletcher c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 03/28/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR EnkhAmgalan Dorjgotov 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. APPL:0223/ FLE P9533US1 CONFIRMATION NO. 9185 EXAMINER PARK, SANGHYUK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 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): docket@fyiplaw.com hill@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ENKHAMGALAN DORJGOTOV, ZHIBING GE, MING XU, CHENG CHEN, YOUNG BAE PARK, JOHN Z. ZHONG, WEI CHEN, and SHAWN ROBERT GETTEMY 1 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 Technology Center 2600 Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12-26, 30, and 31, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 5-11, and 27-29 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' application relates to preventing or reducing gray scale inversion in high-contrast liquid crystal display panels. Spec. i-fi-1 2-6. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An electronic device comprising: a liquid crystal display having a plurality of pixels with a liquid crystal material disposed between two liquid crystal alignment layers not symmetric to one another, and having upper and lower polarizing layers respectively above and below the two liquid crystal alignment layers, wherein light transmittance through the plurality of pixels increases monotonically as gray scale voltages increase and wherein: the liquid crystal display is configured to operate using a gray scale level 0 voltage that is higher than a minimum gray scale level 0 voltage capability of the liquid crystal display; or liquid crystal molecular alignment axes of the two liquid crystal alignment layers are offset from one another by an offset angle other than a multiple of 180 degrees; or at least one of a first polarizing axis associated with the upper polarizing layer and a second polarizing axis associated with the lower polarizing layer is substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular to one of the liquid crystal molecular alignment axes of the two liquid crystal alignment layers to prevent or reduce gray scale inversion, wherein gray scale inversion causes light transmittance not to increase monotonically with all gray scale voltages, that would otherwise occur if the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis were parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis; or any combination thereof. 2 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1, 3, 4, 12-26, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsui (US 2008/0204647 Al; Aug. 28, 2008); Lin (US 2006/0061710 Al; Mar. 23, 2006); and Allen et al. (US 2003/0193636 Al; Oct. 16, 2003). Final Act. 2-23. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight the following additional points. Independent claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Matsui, Lin, and Allen. App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants argue claim 1 and the other independent claims recite layers that in a first arrangement would experience gray scale inversion and in a second arrangement would experience reduced or no gray scale inversion. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Matsui does not teach anything related to gray scale inversion, including preventing or reducing gray scale inversion. Id. at 11. Appellants argue Matsui' s teachings relating to the arrangement of alignment films and polarizers is unrelated to gray scale inversion. Id. at 11. 3 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 Appellants further argue Lin does not remedy Matsui's deficiencies. Id. at 11-12. Appellants argue the claims are limited to "voltage-based" gray scale inversion because claim 1 recites gray scale inversion "causes light transmittance not to increase monotonically with all gray scale voltages." Id. at 11-12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that instead of addressing voltage-based gray scale inversion, Lin addresses angle-based gray scale inversion. Id. at 11-12. Regarding Allen, Appellants argue that although Allen teaches methods of addressing gray scale inversion, Allen does not teach arranging layers to reduce or prevent gray scale inversion and, therefore, does not remedy Matsui's deficiencies. Id. at 11-12. Appellants also argue Allen does not provide any indication that Lin's teachings would apply to voltage-based gray scale inversion, rather than angle-based gray scale inversion. Id. at 11-12. The Examiner concludes the claims are not limited to "voltage-based" gray scale inversion because the only claim limitation defining gray scale inversion recites that the inversion "causes light transmittance not to increase monotonically with all gray scale voltages," which is the definition of gray scale inversion itself, according to the Examiner. Ans. 26. Applying this definition, the Examiner finds Lin and Allen teach preventing gray scale inversion. Final Act. 4-6; Ans. 26. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Matsui teaches alignment film ORI2 is substantially non-parallel to the direction of polarizer P2. Ans. 23-24 (citing Matsui i-f 90). The Examiner finds Matsui does not teach aligning layers as claimed to prevent or reduce gray scale inversion, but Lin so teaches. Ans. 24-25. 4 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 Appellants and the Examiner disagree as to whether the claims are limited to "voltage-based" gray scale inversion. Appellants argue the claim limitation "gray scale inversion causes light transmittance not to increase monotonically with all gray scale voltages" restricts the claims to voltage- based gray scale inversion. We disagree. Allen teaches Yet another viewing angle characteristic that can be observed is substantial non-uniform behavior of gray scale voltage changes and even the occurrence of gray scale inversion. The non- uniform behavior occurs when the angular dependent transmission of the liquid crystal layer does not monotonically follow the voltage applied to the layer. Gray scale inversion occurs when the ratio of intensities of any two adjacent gray levels approaches a value of one, where the gray levels become indistinguishable or even invert. Typically, gray scale inversion occurs only at some viewing angles. Allen i-f 5 (emphasis added). In other words, Allen teaches angular dependent transmission "causes light transmittance not to increase monotonically with all gray scale voltages," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is not limited to voltage-based gray scale inversion. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error because Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or evidence that the Examiner's findings regarding Lin and Allen's teachings of preventing or reducing gray scale inversion are in error. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Matsui, Lin, and Allen. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 12, 21, 30, and 31, and dependent claims 3, 4, 14-20, and 22-26, for which Appellants do not offer separate arguments. See App. Br. 12. 5 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 Dependent claim 13 Claim 13 recites (emphasis added): The electronic display of claim 12, wherein the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis is offset from being parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis by an angle configured to cause the pixel to transmit a reduced amount of light in the absence of an electric field than that which would be transmitted by the pixel if both the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis were parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis and the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis in the absence of the electric field. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as unpatentable over Matsui, Lin, and Allen. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4-6. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner misread the limitations in claim 13 and disregarded necessary limitations. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants argue the initial "or" in the claim refers to a selection between the "at least one polarizing axis being substantially non-parallel and substantially non- perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal alignment axis." Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Appellants argue this selection does not preclude the rest of the claim from having patentable weight. Appellants argue Matsui "fails to disclose a molecular alignment axis offset from being parallel or perpendicular to another alignment axis by an angle configured to cause the pixel to transmit a reduced amount of light in the absence of an electric field, as generally recited by the remainder of dependent claims 13." Id. at 13. 6 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 The Examiner concludes claim 13 can be properly divided into two parts. According to the Examiner, the first part of the claim is "wherein the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis." According to the Examiner, the second part of the claim is "or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis is offset from being parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis." Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 13 contains several "or" limitations. Claim 13 recites "the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis" and clarifies that these axes are "substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular" to one of two axes: "the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis." Claim 13 then continues that the modified "the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis" "is offset from being parallel or perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis or the second liquid crystal molecular alignment axis by an angle configured to cause .... " Accordingly, the first "or" limitation does not separate the claim into two parts as proposed by the Examiner. This is clear because the Examiner's proposed first clause, "wherein the at least one of the first polarizing axis and the second polarizing axis substantially non-parallel and substantially non-perpendicular to the first liquid crystal molecular alignment axis" is grammatically incomplete. The "or" limitation adds additional limitations, including a verb, that completes this portion of the sentence. Further, the "or" limitation joins two liquid crystal molecular 7 Appeal 2016-005619 Application 12/794,623 alignment axes in the claim-a "first" and a "second." The "or" limitation refers to a selection between these "first" and "second" axes, not a separation of the entire claim into two parts. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the portion of claim 13 after the first "or" is not optional. The Examiner does not find that Matsui teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 and, therefore, has not established that Matsui teaches or suggests claim 13. Accordingly, we are constrained by this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14-26, 30, and 31. We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8