Ex Parte Hayakawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2017

13092191 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/092,191 04/22/2011 Masahiko Hayakawa 12732-0859001 6049
26171 7590 03/17/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
LANDIS, LISAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAHIKO HAYAKAWA and
SHINYA OKANO
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,1911
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—15 and 18—24, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Semiconductor
Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed December 29, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 24, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 27, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed July 8,
2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification, filed April 22, 2011
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a display device in which power
consumed in an image holding period is suppressed. Abstract. The display
device includes a liquid crystal display panel driven by power supplied from
a power supply circuit, shown in Figure 2, as reproduced below with
additional markings for illustration. Spec. 39, 40; Abstract.
FIG. 2
POWER SUPPLY CIRCUIT
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a power supply circuit.
As shown in Appellants’ Figure 2, the power supply circuit 116 is
provided with DC-DC converters 118a, 118b and backup circuits 119a, 119b
to supply power to liquid crystal display panel 120. Spec. 39, 40.
2
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
Capacitors 192a, 192b are charged by DC-DC converters 118a, 118b during
a writing operation having a large load; thereafter, capacitors 192a, 192b
supply the charge in an image holding period having a small load, without
using DC-DC converters 118a, 118b. Spec. Tflf 42, 44, 47. Arithmetic
circuit 114 controls the power supply to DC-DC converters 118a, 118b in
accordance with the charging states of capacitors 192a, 192b, and connects
capacitors 192a, 192b to the display panel when power is not input to DC-
DC converters 118a, 118b. Spec. 45^47, 50.
Representative Claim
Claims 1,8, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics'.
1. A liquid crystal display device comprising:
a converter configured to convert a power supply into
predetermined direct-current power;
a backup circuit comprising a capacitor, the capacitor
being connectable to an output terminal of the converter;
a liquid crystal display panel comprising a transistor
including an oxide semiconductor layer, the liquid crystal display
panel electrically connectable to the converter and the capacitor;
a circuit configured to disconnect the converter from the
capacitor and connect the capacitor to the liquid crystal display
panel when the power supply is not input to the converter,
wherein the oxide semiconductor layer contains indium,
gallium, and zinc, and
wherein the power supply to the converter is stopped in
accordance with a potential of the capacitor.
App. Br. 6—12 (Claims App’x).
3
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
Examiner’s Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1, 3—6, 15, 18, 19, and 21—24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al., (US
2002/0036636 Al; published Mar. 28, 2002; “Yanagi”), Kimura (US
2008/0284929 Al; published Nov. 20, 2008), and Eom (US 2009/0058311
Al; published Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 4—11.
(2) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yanagi, Kimura, Eom, and Shinya (JP 2003-202844 A;
published July 18, 2003). Final Act. 11—12.
(3) Claims 7—14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yanagi, Kimura, Eom, and Kawagoshi (US
2007/0262757 Al; published Nov. 15, 2007). Final Act. 12-15.
(4) Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yanagi, Kimura, Eom, Kawagoshi, and Shinya. Final
Act. 15.3
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Yanagi, Kimura, and Eom teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation: “wherein the power supply to the converter is
stopped in accordance with a potential of the capacitor,” as recited in
Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 8, and similarly recited in independent
claim 15. App. Br. 3—30; Reply Br. 1—3.
3 The missing Eom reference in the statement of this rejection is a
typographical error (see Final Act. 15, Item 10). Eom is used in the rejection
of claim 9 (see Final Act. 15, body of the rejection; see also Ans. 4).
4
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the Examiner finds
Yanagi teaches a liquid crystal display device including a display panel, a
converter, a backup circuit comprising a capacitor connectable to an output
terminal of the converter, and a circuit controlling connections between
converter, capacitor, and display panel. Final Act. 4, 8, 13 (citing Yanagi
1165-66, 124—133, Fig. 21).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
(1) Kimura for teaching the claimed “transistor” and (2) Eom for teaching a
circuit in which the power supply to the converter is stopped in accordance
with a potential of a capacitor. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Kimura H 228—232,
658; Eom H 54, 62, 69, Figs. 6—8, DC-DC converter 400d, capacitor Cch).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Eom.
Appellants contend Eom does not teach the disputed limitation: “wherein the
power supply to the converter is stopped in accordance with a potential of
the capacitor,” as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 8, and
similarly recited in independent claim 15. App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—3. In
particular, Appellants argue “Eom does not describe or suggest a dependent
relationship between stopping power supply to the DC-DC converter 400d in
view of a potential of the capacitor Cch.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Eom || 54, 62,
69, Figs. 6—8); see also App. Br. 3^4. Appellants argue Eom’s Figure 6
merely provides a discharge path for the charged capacitor Cch to prevent
unwanted luminescence when the converter is stopped, but “Eom does not
describe or suggest anything with respect to stopping power supply to the
DC-DC converter in accordance with a potential of the capacitor Cch.”
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 3^4.
5
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive or commensurate
with the scope of Appellants’ claims 1, 8, and 15. Instead, we find the
Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 4—5. As such, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and explanations. Id. For additional emphasis, we note
Appellants’ claim 1—and similarly claims 8 and 15—does not recite or
require “a dependent relationship between stopping power supply to the DC-
DC converter . . . in view of a potential of the capacitor’'' as alleged by
Appellants. Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added). Rather, Appellants’claims
recite power supply to the converter is stopped “in accordance with” a
capacitor’s potential. App. Br. 6, 8, 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
The claimed “in accordance with” is “open-ended as to the actual
relationship between stopping of the power supply and the potential of the
capacitor.” Ans. 5. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely require “some
agreement or conformity to a rule, but. . . that rule is not defined beyond the
mere relation of the [converter’s] power supply being stopped with the
potential of the capacitor.” Ans. 4—5.
In light of the broad terms recited in claims 1,8, and 15, we agree
with the Examiner that Eom’s Figure 6 and paragraph 54 teach power supply
to converter 400d is stopped in accordance with capacitor Cch’s potential.
Ans. 5. In particular, Eom discloses “there is some relationship between the
capacitor potential [potential ELVDD] and the stopping of the [converter’s]
power supply” because converter 400d is stopped at a time when “capacitor
Cch is charged with the voltage of the first power supply ELVDD” produced
by converter 400d. Ans. 5; see Eom | 54, Fig. 6. Thus, Eom discloses
6
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
“wherein the power supply to the converter [400d] is stopped in accordance
with a potential of the capacitor” as claimed.
Eom’s Figure 6 shows DC-DC converter 400d, as reproduced below
with additional markings, inserted in red, for illustration:
400d------ ---
FIG. 6 is a schematic view showing DC-DC converter 400d.
As shown in Eom’s Figure 6, the output terminal of DC-DC converter
400d is coupled to capacitor Cch. Eom teaches that “[w]hen the voltage
charged in capacitor Cch is not discharged and DC-DC converter 400d is
stopped during its operation, capacitor Cch is charged with the voltage of the
first power supply EFVDD.” Eom || 54. One of ordinary skill in the art
would understand from these teachings that there is a relationship between
stopping DC-DC converter 400d and the potential of capacitor Cch, namely
that the capacitor is charged with voltage EFVDD when DC-DC converter
400d is stopped during operation.
7
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
In addition to Eom’s teaching, Yanagi also discloses a converter’s
(charge-pump power supplies 22 and 23) operation is stopped when “output
voltages [for TFT panel drivers] in the hold mode can be maintained by the
respective [charged] smoothing capacitors,” thereby suggesting that power
supply to the converter is stopped in accordance with a capacitor’s
potential, as claimed. See Yanagi 1133 (emphasis added), see also Yanagi
11126, 131, Figs. 12, 21. Yanagi’s stopping the converter when a
capacitor’s potential can provide the hold mode voltage is commensurate
with the broad description of stopping the converter “in accordance with a
potential of the capacitor” in Appellants’ Specification.4
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1,8, and 15, and dependent claims 2—7, 9—
14, and 18—24, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 4—5.
CONCEUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—15 and 18—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4 Appellants’ Specification describes “control[ling] power supply to the first
DC-DC converter 118a and the second DC-DC converter 118b ... in
accordance with the charging states of the capacitor 192a and the capacitor
192b f whereby “fixed potentials can be preferentially supplied from the
capacitors without using the DC-DC converters in an image holding period
when the load is small.” Spec. ^fl[ 45, 47 (emphases added).
8
Appeal 2016-008023
Application 13/092,191
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15
and 18-24.
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
9