Ex Parte LIN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201814507737 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/507,737 10/06/2014 26245 7590 12/04/2018 E INK CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 1000 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821-4165 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Craig LIN 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. F-0416 1959 EXAMINER SITTA, GRANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 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): IP@eink.com bbean@eink.com abaronian@eink.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRAIG LIN, JO-CHENG HUANG, HENG- CHE CHEN, PETER LAXTON, MING WANG, PING- YUEH CHENG, and HONGMEI ZANG Appeal2018-003996 1 Application 14/507,737 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is E Ink California, LLC., the assignee of record, .... [which] is a wholly owned subsidiary of E Ink Corporation ... , which is tum is a wholly owned subsidiary of E Ink Holdings Ltd." Br. 3. Appeal2018-003996 Application 14/507,737 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to "driving methods for a color display device which . . . utilizes an electrophoretic fluid which comprises three types of pigment particles having different optical characteristics." Abstract. Claims 1-20 are pending; of these, claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent. See Br. 20-24. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference ( emphases and formatting added): 1. A driving method for an electrophoretic display comprising a first surface on the viewing side, a second surface on the non-viewing side and an electrophoretic fluid which fluid is sandwiched between a common electrode and a layer of pixel electrodes and comprises a first type of pigment particles, a second type of pigment particles and a third type of pigment particles, all of which are dispersed in a solvent or solvent mixture, wherein (a) the three types of pigment particles have optical characteristics differing from one another; (b) the first type of pigment particles and the second type of pigment particles carry opposite charge polarities; and ( c) the third type of pigment particles has the same charge polarity as the second type of pigment particles but at a lower intensity, the method comprises the following steps: (i) applying a first driving voltage to a pixel in the electrophoretic display for a first period of time, wherein the first driving voltage has a first direction that drives the first type of pigment particles toward the viewing side of the electrophoretic display; (ii) applying a second driving voltage to the pixel for a second period of time, wherein the second driving voltage has a second direction opposite to the first direction and drives the third type of pigment particles toward the viewing side of the electrophoretic display; and repeating a driving cycle including steps (i) and (ii) for a plurality of times until a color state of the third type of pigment particles fully appears at the viewing side, as the color state of 2 Appeal2018-003996 Application 14/507,737 the third type of pigment particles in the pixel becomes more intense at the viewing side after each driving cycle. (Br., Claims Appendix, 20.) References and Re} ections Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chopra (US 2007/0297038 Al; Dec. 27, 2007) and Machida (US 2002/0196207 Al; Dec. 26, 2002). Final Act. 8-15. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chopra, Machida, and Johnson (US 2008/0266243 Al; Oct. 30, 2008). Final Act. 15-16. ANALYSIS In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Chopra teaches the recited first and second driving voltages, but "Chopra fails to teach repeating a driving cycle including steps (i) and (ii)." Final Act. 9-10 ( emphasis omitted); Chopra Figs. 15-18. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill would combine Chopra with Machida, because Machida's initializing drive "teaches repeating a driving cycle ... as the color state of the third type of pigment particles in the pixel becomes more intense at the viewing side after each driving cycle." Final Act. 10; Machida Fig. 9, ,r,r 24, 31. Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because "[n]o one skilled in the technology of electrophoretic displays would combine Chopra and Machida in the manner suggested in the final Office Action." Br. 17. Appellants contend repeating Chopra's drive cycle "appears more 3 Appeal2018-003996 Application 14/507,737 likely to mix the magenta and yellow particles than separate them" (Br. 16) and "[ t ]here is nothing in Machida to suggest repeating a plurality of drive steps, as required by present claim 1." Br. 17-18. Particularly, Appellants assert that Machida teaches away from repeating a driving waveform, because "Machida teaches ( see Figures 5 and 6 and the related description at Paragraph [0103]) that when such a gas-based display is repeatedly cycled between the display states corresponding to the colors of the two different particles, clear dot-like defects occur in the image on the front electrode." Br. 17. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds Machida's initializing drive is comparable to a "shaking waveform" as described in Appellants' Specification. Ans. 9 (citing Spec. 17-18; Machida ,r,r 19, 21). We agree with Appellants, however, that "both Machida's initializing drive and the present shaking waveform are intended to restore the electrophoretic fluid to a known state rather than to drive it to a particular optical state," thus "Machida does not describe any repetition of a driving waveform; instead, it teaches use of a rapidly alternating driving voltage prior to each driving waveform." Br. 18; Spec. 18; Machida Fig. 9. Specifically, claim 1 recites "repeating a driving cycle" in which "the color state of the third type of pigment particles in the pixel becomes more intense at the viewing side after each driving cycle." In contrast, the Examiner cites Machida's teaching of "conduct[ing] initialization before applying a display drive voltage." Machida ,r 31 ( emphasis added); Final Act. 10-11. Thus, the Examiner has not shown Machida teaches repeating a driving cycle as claimed. See Br. 18; Machida ,r 28 (describing the initialization is not the "same as the state in which display change is rapidly 4 Appeal2018-003996 Application 14/507,737 repeated and accelerates particle coagulation, thus rendering conspicuous the occurrence of defective display"); see also Spec. 18, 1. 5-8. ("After the shaking waveform is applied, the optical state would not be a pure white, pure black or pure red. Instead, the color state would be from a mixture of the three types of pigment particles."). Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner errs in finding Machida teaches or suggests the repeating step of independent claim 1. Based on the record before us, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, independent claims 7 and 14 which recite similar limitations, and the claims dependent thereon. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation