Ex Parte OTA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 9, 2019

14930209 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/930,209 11/02/2015 25944 7590 07/11/2019 OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hitoshi OTA 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. 154491.01 8546 EXAMINER PATEL, SANJIV D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/11/2019 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): OfficeAction25944@oliff.com jarmstrong@oliff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HITOSHI OT A and HIDE TO ISHIGURO Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is listed as Seiko Epson Corporation. Br. 1. Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to "light emitting elements such as organic light emitting diode[s]" and "a driving method of an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus capable of controlling the current supplied to a light emitting element with high precision." Spec. ,r,r 3, 7. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 19 are pending; of these, claims 1 and 5 are independent. Br. 9. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference ( emphasized limitations referred to herein as the "capacitance limitations"): 1. An electro-optical device comprising: a first capacitor having a first electrode and a second electrode; a control circuit that supplies a data signal to the first electrode of the first capacitor; a first wiring electrically connected to the second electrode of the first capacitor; a second wiring to which a fixed potential is supplied; a second capacitor having a third electrode electrically connected to the first wiring and a fourth electrode electrically connected to the second wiring; a pixel circuit electrically connected to the first wiring, the pixel circuit having a pixel capacitor holding a first voltage according to the data signal, the pixel circuit including an electro- optical element; a first transistor having a gate electrode and controlling current supplied to the electro-optical element when electrically connected to the electro-optical element; 2 and 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether claim 1 is indefinite for reciting method steps in a device claim. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[The] claims, however, create confusion as to when direct infringement occurs because they are directed both to systems and to actions performed.") 2 Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 a second transistor which is electrically connected between the first wiring and a gate of the first transistor and which is configured to be turned on or off, wherein the first voltage is generated based on the data signal and a capacitance ratio of at least the first capacitor and the second capacitor, a capacitance of the second capacitor is greater than a capacitance of the first capacitor, the capacitance of the first capacitor is greater than a capacitance of the pixel capacitor, and the pixel capacitor is connected to the gate electrode of the first transistor and the potential voltage change amount of the data signal is compressed at the gate electrode of the first transistor by the capacitance ratio. References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Yu Uchino Kim Jeong US 2007 /0040591 Al US 2007 /0120795 Al US 2007 /0124633 Al US 2011/0050741 Al Feb.22,2007 May 31, 2007 May 31, 2007 Mar. 3, 2011 Claims 1, 3, and 9 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of certain claims of US Patent No. 9,230,477. Final Act. 4. 3 Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong and Kim. Final Act. 6, 10. 3 After the mailing of the Final Office Action, Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer. See Br. 9. In the Answer, however, the Examiner maintains all grounds of rejection without indicating whether the terminal disclaimer had been considered. See Ans. 2. We do not reach the issue of the double patenting rejection; we leave it to the Examiner to clarify the status of the rejection in light of the terminal disclaimer. 3 Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong, Kim, and Yu. Final Act. 10-11. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong, Kim, and Uchino. Final Act. 15. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong, Kim, Yu, and Uchino. Final Act. 16. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c) (1) (iv). We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. In rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds the "Jeong reference affirmatively discloses the structural elements of a first capacitor, a second capacitor, and a pixel capacitor as recited in claim 1." Ans. 3; Jeong Fig. 8E. The Examiner determines, although Jeong does not disclose the recited capacitance limitations (Final Act. 8), that these limitations "would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of [the] invention" (Final Act. 9). To support the finding of obviousness, the Examiner provides two rationales. First, the Examiner finds "that there [is] a finite number of possibilities for setting the capacitance," and it "would be obvious for a person to try and set the capacitance of the first capacitor to a value between the data capacitor Cdata and storage capacitor C with a reasonable expectation of success." Final 4 Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 Act. 8. Second, the Examiner finds "Kim discloses a comparable display device [as Jeong] which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention," and "it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the teachings of Kim to that of Jeong." Final Act. 9. Appellants argue both rationales of the Examiner are erroneous. Regarding the Examiner's first rationale, Appellants contend, "the value of the first capacitance is more unpredictable" than asserted by the Examiner, and "[ w ]ithout recognizing the importance of the capacitance ratio as addressed by the present application, one of ordinary skill ... would not have had any reasonable rationale to adjust the capacitances of the capacitors" as claimed. Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection-based upon the Examiner's first rationale-is in error. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not challenge, that Jeong teaches the recited circuit including the three capacitors. See Ans. 3; Br. 9; Jeong Figs. 6, 8E. The capacitance limitations further recite two relative capacitance values ( as measured between the first and second capacitors, and between the first and pixel capacitors), which results in "a finite number of possibilities for setting the capacitance for the first capacitor with respect to the second capacitor and the pixel capacitor." Final Act. 8; see also Br. 12 ("the first capacitance could have three possibilities"). As noted by the Examiner, Appellants do not "demonstrate any unique or unexpected results occurring from the claimed relationship of capacitance values." Ans. 6. Nor do Appellants persuade us the Examiner is incorrect in finding the claimed, finite "possibilities lead to results that are predictable by a person of ordinary skill in the art and achieved with a reasonable expectation of success." Ans. 8. 5 Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 The limited number of possibilities for the recited capacitance limitations are known options that would be well within the technical grasp of one of skill in the art. 4 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have known to adjust Jeong's capacitors to the recited ratios of the capacitance limitations. See Ans. 8-9. For at least this reason, we are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. Regarding the Examiner's second rationale, Appellants contend "Kim does not disclose a first capacitor with specificity to be compatible with the asserted first capacitor assertedly disclosed in Jeong," and the Examiner fails to explain why Kim's teachings would have "motivated one of ordina[ry] skill to adjust the capacitances of the capacitors to reach the capacitance ratio recited in claims 1 and 5." Br. 10-11. In the Answer, the Examiner newly finds that "even when taking an inquiry as Appellant suggests, Kim at ,r [0044] suggests configuring Cdata such that it[]s capacitance is larger than storage capacitor Cst in order that data signals are stored in data capacitors in order to produce stable driving of pixels (Kim at ,r [0090])." Ans. 8. Appellants do not challenge this rationale, as no Reply Brief was filed. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded the Examiner's rejection-based upon the Examiner's second rationale-is in error. 5 4 See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402---03 (2007) ("When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp."). 5 See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("[T]he Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review ... uncontested aspects of the rejection."). 6 Appeal2018-007588 Application 14/930,209 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the remaining claims not separately argued. See Br. 13. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7