Ex Parte HUR et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

12534261 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/534,261 08/03/2009 Myung-Koo HUR
23413 7590 04/13/2016
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
PNK0647US 9320
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LAUREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MYUNG-KOO HUR,
CHEOL-GON LEE, and YOON-SUNG UM
Appeal2014-005653
Application 12/534,261 1
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 15-20.2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Real Party in Interest is Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Br. 3).
2 Claims 13 and 14 have been withdrawn (Claims App'x).
Appeal2014--005653
Application 12/534,261
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis
added):
1. A liquid crystal display comprising:
a plurality of pixel electrodes, each pixel electrode of the
plurality of pixel electrodes respectively including a first sub-
pixel electrode and a second sub-pixel electrode;
a plurality of first thin film transistors, each of the plurality
of first thin-film transistors connected to at least one first sub-
pixel electrode;
a plurality of second thin film transistors, each of the
plurality of second thin film transistors connected to at least one
second sub-pixel electrode;
a plurality of third thin film transistors, each of the
plurality of third thin film transistors connected to the at least one
second sub-pixel electrode;
a plurality of first gate lines respectively connected to the
plurality of first thin film transistors and the plurality of second
thin film transistors;
a plurality of data lines respectively connected to the
plurality of first thin film transistors and the plurality of second
thin film transistors;
a plurality of second gate lines respectively connected to
the plurality of third thin film transistors; and
a capacitor electrode line including a capacitor electrode
which is aligned with drain electrodes of the plurality of third
thin film transistors,
wherein the capacitor electrode line includes one of a
voltage that is less than a minimum value of a voltage applied to
each of the data lines and a voltage that is greater than a
maximum value of the voltage applied to each of the data lines.
2
Appeal2014--005653
Application 12/534,261
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
(a) Claims 1--4, 6, 8-12, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Song (US Pre-grant Publication
2005/0036091 Al, published Feb. 17, 2005);
(b) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Song in view of Lee et al. (US Pre-grant Publication 2006/0081849
Al, published Apr. 20, 2006) ("Lee '849"); and
(c) Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Song in view of Lee et al. (US Pre-grant Publication
2006/0091391 Al, published May 4, 2006) ("Lee '391").
Claims 1 and 15 are independent and are argued together as the focus
of Appellants' arguments (see Br., generally), with no separate substantive
remarks for the other rejected claims (Br. 15-16).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this appeal record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner's finding that the subject matter of Appellants'
claims 1 and 15 is anticipated by Song. A preponderance of the evidence
also supports the Examiner's determination that the subject matter of the
dependent claims is either anticipated or obvious over the applied prior art
cited in the Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer. Accordingly, we
will sustain all of the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, including the Examiner's Response to Argument
section, and we add the following for emphasis.
3
Appeal2014--005653
Application 12/534,261
Given the structural identity and similarity of Song's liquid crystal
display arrangement to Appellants' claimed liquid crystal display, we
determine that the Examiner was justified in concluding that Song
anticipates claims 1 and 15. In particular, the last limitation of claims 1 and
15 is a functional limitation. As the Examiner explains, Song's apparatus
appears to have the capability of functioning as claimed when certain
voltages are applied as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 4--5; Final Rej. 2-
7). See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Where
there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently
capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the
applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the
claimed structure from the prior art structure.). 3
Appellants have provided no evidence, or any persuasive lines of
technical reasoning, explaining why the capacitor electrode lines of Song do
not or are not capable of including a voltage that is slightly less than a
minimum value of the voltage applied to the data lines or slightly greater
than a maximum value of the voltage applied to the data lines (see generally
Br.; no Reply Brief has been filed).
Moreover, the Examiner details that Song describes a liquid crystal
display with all of the claimed elements, where the capacitor electrode line
includes a voltage that is less than a minimum value or greater than a
maximum value of the voltage applied to the data lines (Ans. 2--4; Final Act.
2). Song's Figure 7 discloses that after the first and second thin film
3 Thus, Appellants must prove that capacitor electrode line of Song is not
capable of functioning as claimed in claims 1 and 15.
4
Appeal2014--005653
Application 12/534,261
transistors are turned on to transmit the data line voltage having negative
polarity to the common voltage, the voltages of the first and second pixel
electrodes change to have the value as the data line voltage (Ans. 2). Then,
the minimum value of the capacitor electrode line and the maximum value
of the voltage applied to the capacitor electrode line during one time frame
are the same, so in a particular time frame, the capacitor electrode line
includes a voltage that is less than a minimum value of a voltage applied to
the data lines (id. at 2-3). The Examiner also notes that the coupling
electrode can represent the claimed capacitor line, so Song discloses that the
voltage of the capacitor electrode line is less than a minimum voltage of the
data lines or more than a maximum voltage of the data lines over a particular
time period (id. at 3--4).
In sum, Appellants have not refuted with sufficient specificity the
Examiner's findings that Song's liquid crystal display is encompassed by the
claimed liquid crystal display such that Song's capacitor electrode line
would perform, or would have been capable of performing, the same
function of including a voltage outside the range of the voltage applied to
each of the data lines (id. at 4--5; Br. generally). Moreover, Appellants have
not refuted the Examiner's findings that Song, in fact, discloses that the
capacitor electrode line includes a voltage outside the range applied to each
of the data lines (Ans. 2--4).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's§ 102 and§ 103 rejections of
the claims on appeal.
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
5
Appeal2014--005653
Application 12/534,261
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6