Ex Parte KIMURA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12731203 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
12/731,203 03/25/2010 Hajime KIMURA 12732-0638001 1742
26171 7590 04/03/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
LI, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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 HAJIME KIMURA and ATSUSHIUMEZAKI
Appeal 2016-007313
Application 12/731,203
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 4—6, 8—12,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3—7. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a semiconductor device, a display
device, and a liquid crystal display device which include driver circuits
formed over the same substrates as pixel portions, and a method for driving
these devices.” Specification 11.
Appeal 2016-007313
Application 12/731,203
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A liquid crystal display device comprising:
a driver circuit to which a first input signal, a second input signal, a
third input signal, and
a fourth input signal are input and according to which an output signal
is output; and
a pixel in which a liquid crystal element is included and a voltage
applied to the liquid crystal element is set in accordance with the output
signal,
wherein the driver circuit comprises first to fourth transistors, each
having a gate, a source, and a drain;
wherein the first input signal is input to one of the source and the
drain of the first transistor;
wherein the second input signal is input to one of the source and the
drain of the second transistor;
wherein the third input signal is input to the gate of the first transistor
and the gate of the second transistor;
wherein the fourth input signal is input to one of the source and the
drain of the third transistor and one of the source and the drain of the fourth
transistor,
wherein the gate of the third transistor is electrically connected to the
other of the source and the drain of the first transistor;
wherein the gate of the fourth transistor is electrically connected to the
other of the source and the drain of the second transistor; and
wherein the pixel is electrically connected to the other of the source
and the drain of the third transistor and the other of the source and the drain
of the fourth transistor such that a conduction path exists between the pixel
2
Appeal 2016-007313
Application 12/731,203
and each of the other of the source and the drain of the third transistor and
the other of the source and the drain of the fourth transistor.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park (US Patent Number 6,091,393; issued July 18, 2000)
and Umezaki (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0026619
A1; published February 4, 2010). Final Rejection 2—6.
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Umezaki, and Tobita (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2008/0219401 Al; published September 11, 2008).
Final Rejection 6—12.
Claims 4—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Umezaki, and Comer (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2003/0187903 Al; published October 2, 2003). Final
Rejection 13—14.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Umezaki, Tobita, and Comer. Final Rejection 14—
16.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Umezaki, and Tobita. Final Rejection 16—17.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 4, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
July 22, 2016), the Answer (mailed May 26, 2016) and the Final Rejection
3
Appeal 2016-007313
Application 12/731,203
(mailed August 4, 2015) for the respective details. We have considered in
this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants contend that the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1 and its dependent claims should be reversed because claim 1 recites
a “fourth input signal is input to one of the source and the drain of the third
transistor and one of the source and the drain of the fourth transistor” and
“neither Park, Umezaki, Comer, Tobita, nor any proper combination of the
four describes or suggests this feature.” Appeal Brief 3^4. Appellants argue
that, “Park describes a device that includes a transistor M5 (which the Office
Action alleges corresponds to the recited third transistor) and a transistor M6
(which the Office Action alleges corresponds to the recited fourth
transistor)” however Park, “does not describe or suggest that a fourth input
signal is input to one of the source and the drain of the transistor M5 and one
of the source and the drain of the transistor M6. See Office Action at page
4.” Appeal Brief 4.
Appellants argue that an artisan would not have modified Park with
the teachings of Umezaki because the “proposed change would change the
principle of operation of Park’s circuit, and, therefore, pursuant to MPEP
2143.01 (VI), the Office Action’s proposed modification cannot support
prima facie obviousness.” Appellants contend that “Park’s circuit is
designed to receive different voltages (i.e. Vcc and Vee) at one of the source
4
Appeal 2016-007313
Application 12/731,203
and the drain of M5 and one of the source and the drain of M6” and
“Modifying Park’s circuit to instead receive the same voltage Vss at one of
the source and the drain of both M5 and M6 would require a substantial
reconstruction and redesign of Park’s circuit as well as a change in the basic
principle under which Park’s device was designed to operate.” Appeal Brief
4.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because biasing
transistors is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art,1 and
fails to produce unexpected results.2 We do not find Appellants’
reconstruction and redesign argument persuasive because in order to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection needs to show what
the combined teaching of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.3 Umezaki merely discloses what is well known in
1 “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
2 Appellants bear the burden of showing unexpected results. In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080
(CCPA 1972). To establish unexpected results, the claimed subject matter
must be compared with the closest prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “It is well settled that unexpected
results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or
conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.” In re Soni, 54
F.3d 746, 753 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984)). A showing of “unexpected results” requires that “the
claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or
unexpected.” Soni, 54 F.3d at 750.
3 “(The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
5
Appeal 2016-007313
Application 12/731,203
the art and that is biasing multiple transistors in order for the device or shift
register to perform the desired function. See Final Rejection 4—5; Umezaki
Figures 9 A, 12, paragraph 237. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2—6, 8—12,
and 28 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 7.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2—6, 8—12, and 28
are 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
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 would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.)” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
6