LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2021

2020004898 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2021)

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.
14/959,337 12/04/2015 Suyun JU 8733.02843.US00 1355
30827 7590 11/26/2021
Dentons US LLP
1900 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2021 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):
mlaip@dentons.com
mlapto@dentons.com
paul.fugitt@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUYUN JU, SUNGCHUL KIM, SANGHYUCK BAE,
SUNGSU HAN, and DOYOUNG JUNG
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LG
DISPLAY CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a touch screen device. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A touch screen device comprising:
a touch screen including a plurality of touch electrodes;
a touch driving circuit applying a touch electrode driving
signal to the plurality of touch electrodes; and
a touch pen receiving the touch electrode driving signal
applied to the plurality of touch electrodes and transmitting a pen
output signal to the touch screen in synchronization with the
received touch electrode driving signal, wherein the touch pen
comprises
a conductive tip through which the touch pen
receives the touch electrode driving signal and transmits
the pen output signal,
a switching circuit electrically connected to the
conductive tip, the switching circuit determining whether
the conductive tip is configured to act as a reception
electrode to receive the touch electrode driving signal
applied to the plurality of touch electrodes or to act as a
transmission electrode to transmit the pen output signal
through the plurality of touch electrodes to the touch
screen, and
a plurality of buttons, and when a user manipulates
one of the plurality of buttons, the touch pen adjusts the
pen output signal to transmit different button manipulation
information according to button manipulation of the user,
wherein the touch electrode drive signal is received in one
frame or more periods prior to determining a synchronization
timing of the pen output signal,
wherein the pen output signal is varied in one or more of
phase, amplitude and number of pulses depending on kinds of
the buttons, and
wherein the touch driving circuit senses the pen output
signal transmitted from the conductive tip of the touch pen
through the plurality of touch electrodes to recognize the button
manipulation information.
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shahparnia et al. US 2013/0106722 A1 May 2, 2013
Vlasov US 2014/0176495 A1 June 26, 2014
Mao et al. US 2014/0375599 A1 Dec. 25, 2014
Rebeschi et al. US 2015/0193025 A1 July 9, 2015
Westhues US 2015/0193033 A1 July 9, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, and 13–18 stand rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Vlasov in view of Westhues, Mao, and
Shahparnia.2
Claims 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious by a Vlasov in view of Westhues, Mao, and Rebeschi.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify

2 With regards to independent claim 10, the claim is directed to a “touch
pen,” but line 10 of the claim refers to “the plurality of touch electrodes
provided in the touch screen” which lacks proper antecedent basis and is not
part of the “touch pen.” Appellant should remedy this problem in any
further prosecution merits. The problem arose from the amendment filed
July 7, 2019, but could be remedied by moving the “wherein” clause down
two paragraphs.
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
4
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon review of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the
record. Accordingly, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellant’s claim 1, recites, inter alia, the limitation “a touch pen
receiving the touch electrode driving signal applied to the plurality of touch
electrodes and transmitting a pen output signal to the touch screen in
synchronization with the received touch electrode driving signal.”
Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant further argues that “Westhues does not teach
or suggest the synchronization timing between the received signal of the
stylus and the output signal of the stylus, and also does not teach or suggest
that the stylus receives the synchronization pattern in one frame or more
periods prior to determining a synchronization timing of the pen output
signal.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also argues there is
no teaching or suggestion in either the Vlasov or Westhues reference that
would have motivated one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the devices
and/or methods described therein to arrive at the presently-claimed touch
screen device and touch pen with a reasonable expectation of success.
Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the Westhues reference fails to
disclose “synchronization” for determining a synchronization timing of the
stylus’s output signal, as presently claimed, and does not cure the deficiency
in the Vlasov reference. Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner finds that Westhues teaches synchronization as it is
used in the claim in paragraphs 20, 48 and 50 of Westhues. Ans. 13. The
Examiner finds these paragraphs describe many types of data that the stylus
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
5
can transmit after the link is established, such as mode, whether the tip is
depressed, and whether through the radio link or the electrostatic link. Ans.
13–14. The Examiner finds that the stylus’s bi-directional radio link
communication with the display is begun after the synchronization is
established and communication occurs with the synchronization and BPSK,
and nowhere in Westhues is described that the communication is
synchronized for one direction and unsynchronized for the other direction of
the bidirectional radio link. Ans. 13–14. The Examiner reasons that
Westhues, therefore, does teach the synchronization timing between the
received signal of the stylus and the output signal of the stylus, synchronized
to frequency and channel.
Ans. 13–14.
We find that the Examiner’s explanation oversimplifies the claimed
invention and does not address the specific limitations recited in the
language of independent claim 1. The Examiner generally identifies that the
radio link from the stylus to the display can performed by bi-directional
communication rather than the use of the electrostatic link. Ans. 13–14.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner and argues that the
synchronization is different between the Westhues reference and the claimed
invention. Appellant specifically argues that:
Notwithstanding the Office’s confusion regarding the scope of
claim 1 based on the inclusion of the term: “one frame or more
periods,” Westhues clearly discloses synchronizing the timing
between the stylus and the interactive display after output of the
stylus. (See e.g., paragraphs [0034]-[0035] of Westhues.)
Appellant, respectfully, continues to submit that the term
“synchronization,” as used in Westhues, differs from the term
“synchronization,” as recited in claim 1, in terms of both function
and purposes. As described at paragraphs [0017], [0035] and
[0037] of Westhues, the establishment of the electrostatic link
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
6
and the communication of the radio channel are accomplished as
fast as one (1) frame, where “frame” refers to the duration taken
to scan the electrode matrix for applied inputs. The
synchronization pattern of Westhues is used to synchronize
timing between the stylus and the interactive display, and
indicates to the stylus the position of a sequence in which a
plurality of row electrodes in the electrode matrix are
sequentially driven. That is, “synchronization,” as described in
Westhues, is merely an operation to inform the stylus of the
position of the row electrodes that are sequentially driven during
one frame, and is not an operation that determines the timing of
synchronization between the received signal of the stylus and the
output signal of the stylus. In particular, Westhues does not teach
or suggest the synchronization timing between the received
signal of the stylus and the output signal of the stylus.
Reply Br. 3–4.
We agree with Appellant that the language of illustrative independent
claim 1 specifically recites
a touch pen receiving the touch electrode driving signal applied
to the plurality of touch electrodes and transmitting a pen
output signal to the touch screen in synchronization with the
received touch electrode driving signal . . . wherein the touch
electrode drive signal [from the touch screen] is received in one
frame or more periods prior to determining a synchronization
timing of the pen output signal.
Therefore, the touch electrode driving signals must be received prior to the
pen output.
We further agree with Appellant that the synchronization is different
between the Westhues reference and the claimed invention. Although the
Westhues reference generally discloses synchronization and at step 628 of
method 600, data may be optionally received from the stylus via the
electrostatic link, Westhues does not specifically disclose how
synchronization is used with the output of the stylus. Although paragraph 50
of the Westhues reference discloses the stylus includes buttons, the
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
7
Westhues reference does not specifically disclose how the synchronization
works with regards to the output and only generally discusses variations of
communication at a high level.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). The Examiner’s burden of proving non-
patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761
F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the evidence is the
standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections.”). “A rejection
based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis.” In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
As a result, we find that Appellant has shown that the Examiner has
provided insufficient factual finding supported by speculation and
insufficient rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness of independent claim 1 and independent claim 10 containing
similar limitations.
Additional Findings
The Examiner finds the claim language regarding “one frame or more
periods prior to determining a synchronization timing of the pen output
signal” is taught by paragraph 54 of the Westhues reference. Final Act. 4.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner further finds that “or more periods”
is undefined in the claim and how it relates to frames, and the claimed
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
8
portion reads “the stylus receives the touch electrode drive signal in one
frame prior to determining a synchronization timing of the pen output
signal.” Ans. 14. The Examiner makes numerous findings regarding
paragraphs 17, 19, and 54, but the Examiner does not specifically address
the synchronization with regards to the output of the pen as recited in the
language of independent claim 1.3 Ans. 14–15.
Appellant argues that paragraph 54 of the Westhues reference merely
describes that “in some scenarios, this synchronization may occur during a
single frame.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant further argues that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Westhues that the synchronization can occur in
more than one frame, and the Office is making a conclusory statement in this
regard without providing any evidentiary support. Reply Br. 4.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument because the alternative
language of the claim requires either a “frame” or “more periods,” but we
find that the express language of the claim is also supported by the original
Specification because the language of the claim merely recites a “frame” in
the alternative and the claim language does not need to have more than one
frame.

3 We note that the language is expressly supported in the Specification
(Spec. ¶¶ 82–84), but we note that the language is in the alternative using
“or.” As a result, the Examiner need only find the use of “frame” or
“periods.” We do agree with the Examiner that the claim language is
unusual because a frame is not the same as periods. As a result, the use of
usual alternative language of “one or more periods” would usually refer to
the same item, but the claim language refers to the use of different items.
For example, “a frame or one or more periods” may be more appropriate.
We leave this to the Examiner to further evaluate the definiteness of this
alternative claim language in any further prosecution on the merits.
Appeal 2020-004898
Application 14/959,337
9
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–18.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10, 11,
13–18
103 Vlasov, Westhues,
Mao
1–8, 10, 11,
13–18
9, 12 103 Vlasov, Westhues,
Mao, Rebeschi
9, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–18

REVERSED