Ex Parte Verschueren

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

12307813 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/307,813 01/07/2009
138325 7590 01/31/2019
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alwin Rogier Martijn Verschueren
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.
2006P01816WOUS 5661
EXAMINER
LAM, VINH TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
kim. larocca@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
Gigi.Miller© signify. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AL WIN ROGIER MAR TIJN VERSCHUEREN1
Appeal2017-006016
Application 12/307,813
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 10, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006016
Application 12/3 07, 813
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a display device comprising an array of
pixels and a plurality of first and second electrodes each supplying a
separate common signal to each pixel. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A display device, comprising an array of
rows and columns of pixels, the array comprising:
a commonly controlled plurality of first electrodes
for supplying a first common drive signal to each pixel of
the array, each first electrode extending through or
alongside a row of pixels for supplying the common
drive signal to the pixels of the row, wherein the plurality
of first electrodes are connected together to supply said
common drive signal;
a commonly controlled plurality of second
electrodes for supplying a second common drive signal
different from the first common drive signal to each pixel
of the array, each second electrode extending through or
alongside a row of pixels for supplying the second
common drive signal to the pixels of the row, wherein the
plurality of second electrodes are connected together to
supply said second common drive signal; and
a plurality of pixel addressing electrodes for
supplying data to the pixels to control optical
appearances of the pixels; and wherein at least the first
and second pluralities of electrodes are arranged on a
common substrate.
2
Appeal2017-006016
Application 12/3 07, 813
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2003/0090614 Al, published
May 15, 2003). Final Act. 2-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim and Johnson et al. (US 2009/0027328 Al, Jan.
29, 2009). Final Act. 8-10.
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim and Inoue et al. (US 2003/0218593 Al, published
Nov. 27, 2003). Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Johnson and Kishi (US
2003/0231162 Al, published Dec. 18, 2003). Final Act. 11-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's anticipation rejection.
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error for several reasons. App. Br. 4 through 9. The dispositive issue
presented by these arguments is, did the Examiner err in finding that Kim
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
October 18, 2016, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed February 2 8, 2017, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 17, 2016, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed December 30, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-006016
Application 12/3 07, 813
teaches, a commonly controlled plurality of first electrodes supplying a first
common drive signal to each pixel of the array and a commonly controlled
plurality of second electrodes for supplying a second common drive signal,
different from the first common drive signal, to each pixel in the array?
The Examiner finds that Kim teaches a first driving signal ( GC 1 in
Fig. 21 and CK of first shift register, 161 in Fig 22) on a plurality of first
electrodes (odd gate lines GLl to GLn+l in Fig. 22). Final Act. 3, Answer 3-
5. Further the Examiner finds that Kim a second driving signal (GC2 in Fig.
21 and CK of second shift register, 171 in Fig 22) on a plurality of second
electrodes (even gate lines GL2 to GLn-l in Fig.22). Final Act. 3, Answer 3-
5. Further, the Examiner considers that the driving signal GCl is applied to
all pixels as it is applied as is directly applied to the odd pixels via the odd
gate lines and applied to and input of the SCR2 ( of the second shift register
171, see Fig. 22) which connects to the even gate lines and even pixels.
Answer 5-8.
We disagree with the Examiner's findings. While we concur with the
Examiner that Kim teaches two separate electrode lines and two separate
driving signals, we disagree that the two separate driving signals are applied
to each pixel in the array. Kim identifies in paragraph 162, that the odd
number pixels are connected to the odd gate lines and the even number of
pixels are connected to the even gate lines. Thus, the signal GC 1 is not
applied to all pixels via the odd gate lines GLl to GLn+l, and the signal GC2
is not applied to all pixels via lines GL2 to GLn-l · We do not agree with the
Examiner's finding that the connections ofCGl to the even SRCs and GC2
to the odd SCRs, meets the claimed applying the signal to every pixels.
Answer 5-8. This finding does not show GC2 being applied to the first row
4
Appeal2017-006016
Application 12/3 07, 813
of odd pixels, and is relying use of the even gate lines, GL2 to GLn-l, to carry
the odd gate signal GC 1 which does not meet the disputed limitation of
claim 1. Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, we need reach Appellant's remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, or of dependent claims 2, 5, and 6.
Appellant argues the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 4,
and 7 through 10 are in error as the additional references do not cure the
deficiencies noted in the anticipation rejection. The Examiner has not
shown limitation of claim 1 disputed in the anticipation rejection is obvious
in light of the teachings of the references cited in the obviousness rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 3, 4, and 7 through 10.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 10.
REVERSED
5