Ex Parte Fu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12753091 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121753,091 04/01/2010 Chien-Hao Fu
31561 7590 05/02/2016
JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE
7 FLOOR-I, NO. 100
ROOSEVELT ROAD, SECTION 2
TAIPEI, 100
TAIWAN
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.
31928-US-PA 3874
EXAMINER
TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
USA@JCIPGROUP.COM.TW
Belinda@JCIPGROUP.COM.TW
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHIEN-HAO FU, WEI-KAI HUANG, CHIA-CHIANG LIN,
HSUEH-HUI LIN, and MING-CHIN LEE1
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-15.2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the named inventors and Au Optronics Corporation
(assignee) as the real parties in interest. Appeal Brief 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
April 17, 2014); Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 15, 2014);
the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed September 17,
2013); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on May 22, 2014); and the
original Specification ("Spec.," filed April 1, 2010).
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to "an active device array substrate
and a display device having uniform impedance and favorable display
quality." Spec. i-f 1.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative with a disputed
limitation in italics:
1. An active device array substrate comprising:
a substrate, comprising an active region and a peripheral region,
wherein the peripheral region is positioned at a periphery of the active
reg10n;
a plurality of scan lines, disposed in the active region of the
substrate;
a plurality of control lines, disposed in the active region of the
substrate, parallel to the plurality of scan lines, wherein "m" control
lines are disposed next to every "n" scan lines, and "n" and "m" are
positive integers;
a plurality of data lines, intersecting with the plurality of scan
lines and the plurality of the control lines;
a plurality of pixel structures, disposed in the active region of
the substrate, wherein a display voltage transmitted by the plurality of
data lines is controlled by a scan voltage of the plurality of scan lines
and is inputted to the plurality of pixel stn1ctures;
a plurality of main transmission lines, positioned in the
peripheral region of the substrate and connected with the plurality of
scan lines;
a plurality of sub transmission lines, positioned in the
peripheral region of the substrate and connected with the plurality of
control lines, wherein the plurality of sub transmission lines and the
plurality of main transmission lines are configured alternatively,
wherein each of the plurality of main transmission lines
comprises at least one impedance adjusting unit while each of the sub
transmission lines does not, and an impedance difference between at
2
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
least one of the plurality of main transmission lines and one of
adjacent sub transmission lines is greater than 3 ohms (.Q).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6-9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 7,876,389 B2; Jan. 25, 2011 (filed
Nov. 17, 2008)) ("Kiml") and Kim et al. (US 7,466,387 B2; Dec. 16, 2008)
("Kim2"). Non-Final Act. 4--9.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kiml, Kim2, and Lee et al. (US 2006/0138983 Al;
June 29, 2006) ("Lee"). Non-Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kiml, Kim2, and Kim (US 2007/0002243 Al; Jan. 4,
2007) ("Kim3"). Non-Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions of
Examiner error (App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 1--4). We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 4--12) and as set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer (Ans. 12-15). However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kiml and Kim2 teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1
principally because Kim2 teaches impedance adjusting for all signals. App.
Br. 8-9. In contrast, claim 1 expressly recites "each of the sub transmission
lines does not [(comprise at least one impedance adjusting unit)]." Id.
We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Kiml teaches, inter alia, a plurality of signal lines alternating with a
plurality of control lines in the active region of a substrate. Non-Final Act
3--4 (citing Kiml Fig. 1); Ans. 12. Further, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Kim2 teaches, inter alia, a plurality of main transmission lines,
positioned in the peripheral region, wherein each main transmission line
comprises at least one impedance adjusting unit. Non-Final Act. 5---6 (citing
Kim2, Figs. 1-3 and 5-8); Ans. 12-13. The Examiner explains that
although Kim2 does not teach the lack of impedance adjustment on sub
transmission lines located in the peripheral region, which are connected to
control lines in the active region of a substrate, this is "for the simple reason
that the circuit of Kim 2 does not have control lines and corresponding sub
transmission lines." Ans. 13. The Examiner further explains it would have
been suggested to the ordinary skilled artisan to exclude such impedance
adjustment (as taught in Kim2) from the control lines of Kiml (in the
proposed combination) because:
Kim 1 teaches (e.g., Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 35 - 40; col. 4, lines 18 -
20) that the voltages supplied by the scan lines directly affect the
transmittance of the first and second sub-pixels ((501) and (502))
via the respective TFTs ((601) and (602)), while the voltages
supplied by the control lines affect the transmittance of only the
second sub-pixels (502) and only indirectly, i.e., by switching on
the corresponding TFT (701) and thereby adding the capacitance
4
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
(Cst3) to (Cst2) (col. 4, lines 4- 28). Thus, the voltages provided
by the control lines do not have to be accurately controlled as
accurately as the voltages provided by the scan lines. As such,
the Kim 1 - Kim 2 combination renders obvious that the control
lines do not have to have equalized voltages applied to different
control TFTs (701) (as long as the applied voltages exceed the
minimum switch-on voltage of (701) to control the step-
down/control capacitors (Cst3)) and hence do not require
impedance adjusting units.
Non-Final Act. at 6-7.
Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Kiml and
Kim2 teaches or suggests main transmission lines (e.g., Kiml gate lines 101
and 102) modified to have impedance adjustment and arranged alternating
with sub transmission lines (e.g., Kiml control lines 301 and 302) having no
such impedance adjustment.
Appellants additionally argue Kiml explicitly teaches control line 301
may be connected to the next stage gate line 102 (App. Br. 9 (citing Kim
4:12-13)) and; thus; contend "[s]ince Kim-I clearly teaches that the lines
301 and 302 are electrically connected to the gate line, the lines 301 and 302
ofKim-1 should be controlled in a manner similar to the gate lines [(101 and
102)]." Id. We do not agree. Kiml does not discuss the criticality of the
signaling of any of lines 101, 102, 201, 201, 301, or 302. The Examiner
relies on Kim2, in the proposed combination, for teaching the criticality of
signaling on scan and data lines and the resultant need for impedance
adjustment- i.e., "signal lines" such as gate lines 101 and 102 ofKiml.
Control lines 301 and 302 in Kiml merely improve visibility of the rendered
image by adjusting the charge on a pixel that is "on" (Kim 1 4: 16-1 7, 4: 24--
26) - a pixel that is turned on or off by gate lines 101 and 102 and
corresponding intersecting data lines 201 and 202 (Kim 1 Fig. 1 ).
5
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
Furthermore, Appellants' contention that control line 302 may be
connected to a next stage represents only one embodiment in Kiml. Kiml
also discloses control lines 301 and 302 may be independent of gate lines
101 and 102. Kiml 4:26-28 ("Also, the charge control line 301 is not
limited to the next stage gate line and may be an independently controlled
line.").
Appellants further argue the Examiner errs because,
Even ifthe lines 301 and 302 of Kim-1 in certain embodiment is
electrically independent from the gate lines 101 and 102, there is
still no motivation or suggestion to configure a signal line
without impedance adjustment according to the input signal type
when applying the impedance compensating technique as taught
by Kim-2.
App. Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants contend "the prior art must provide
a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of
appellant's specification and the Office should not determine the claim
invention obvious based on the hindsight of the Appellants' specification."
Id. at 10. Appellants further contend Kim2 expressly teaches the impedance
adjustment is applied to all signal lines to assure uniformity of impedance of
all signal lines. Id. Thus, Appellants conclude, without benefit of hindsight
of Appellants' Specification, the proposed combination would logically add
impedance adjustment to all lines- including control lines of Kimi. Id.;
see also Reply Br. 1-3
We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner reasons
the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kiml
and Kim2 because "proper operation of the LCD device can be enabled by
establishing a continuous electrical path from the signal driver to each
pixel." Non-Final Act 6. Thus, the Examiner has articulated a reason for the
6
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
proposed combination based on rational underpinnings. See KSR Int' I Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Court in KSR further holds,
"the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ." Id. Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner's
reasoning to be in error.
Furthermore, as discussed supra, the Examiner finds Kim2 fails to
discuss the presence or absence of impedance adjustment on the control lines
because Kim2 does not have control lines but Kiml discloses control lines
and signal lines both devoid of impedance adjustments.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references \'l/ould have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981) (citations omitted, emphasis
added). The Examiner finds the pixel unit circuit in Figure 1 of Kiml and
that of Appellants' invention in Figure 3 are nearly identical and, thus,
"routine circuit analysis" by an ordinary skilled artisan would naturally
combine the impedance adjustment of Kim2 only to the scan/gate lines of
Kiml. Ans. 12-13. The Examiner further finds, in addition to such routine
circuit analysis, although the scan lines in Kiml directly control
transmittance of both sub-pixels (501 and 502), as discussed supra, the
control lines ofKiml only indirectly affect the transmittance of the second
sub-pixel (502), and thus do not require the accurate voltage control of the
7
Appeal2014-008239
Application 12/753,091
scan lines. Ans. 13. Therefore, the Examiner has expressed further reasons
based on rational underpinnings as motivation to combine the references and
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted these findings.
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 or claims 2--4, 6-9, 14, and 15 argued
together with claim 1. App. Br. 12. Furthermore, Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 and rejecting claims 10-13 for
essentially the same reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13) and, thus, for the
same reasons as claim 1, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in these
rejections. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8