SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2021

2020006412 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
16/003,055 06/07/2018 Seong-Jun Lee 158705/411598-03306 1057
23363 7590 12/29/2021
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
EXAMINER
LIN, HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2021 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):
PLPrivatePair@lrrc.com
pto@lewisroca.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEONG-JUN LEE, JIN-OH PARK, MU-KYUNG JEON,
YONG-KYU JANG, DONG-HOON LEE, and CHI-WOO KIM
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES B. ARPIN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Display Co. Ltd.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to liquid crystal display substrates.
Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1–20 are pending; claims 1, 16, and 20 are independent.
Appeal Br. 30–37 (Claims App.). Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference
(emphases added):
1. A display substrate comprising:
an insulating substrate comprising a first pixel region and
a second pixel region located in a first direction from the first
pixel region;
a first gate line extending in a second direction crossing
the first direction on the insulating substrate;
a first lower electrode in the first pixel region;
a second lower electrode in the second pixel region;
a first upper electrode overlapping the first lower electrode
in the first pixel region and comprising a first slit pattern
comprising a plurality of first slits extending in a third direction
different from the first and the second directions; and
a second upper electrode overlapping the second lower
electrode in the second pixel region and comprising a second slit
pattern comprising a plurality of second slits extending in a
fourth direction different from the first to the third directions,
wherein the first pixel region forms a first pixel in a first row and
the second pixel region forms a second pixel in a second row
adjacent to the first row, wherein the first row comprising the
first pixel and the second row comprising the second pixel have
different domains from each other,
wherein a first gamma reference voltage group of gamma
voltages according to a first gamma curve for compensating for
a variation of pixels having a same first domain in the first row
is applied to the first pixel in the first row and a first group of
rows of pixels, and a second gamma reference voltage group of
gamma voltages according to a second gamma curve for
compensating for a variation of pixels having a same second
domain in the second row is applied to the second pixel in the
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055

3
second row and a second group of rows of pixels alternating with
the first group of rows of pixels,
wherein the second gamma reference voltage group is
different from the first gamma reference voltage group and the
second gamma reference voltage group is not applied to pixels in
the first group of rows of pixels, and
wherein a luminance difference occurring between the
adjacent first and second rows having the different domains is
compensated by the different first and second gamma reference
voltage groups.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Nakayoshi US 6,897,930 B2 May 24, 2005
Park US 2004/0263748 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Lin US 2006/0284819 Al Dec. 21, 2006
Hsu US 2007/0121048 A1 May 31, 2007
Fujita US 2007/0229748 Al Oct. 4, 2007
Liao US 2008/0068549 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
Jeon US 2008/0191980 A1 Aug. 14, 2008
Yamada US 2009/0115946 A1 May 7, 2009
Kim US 2009/0284673 Al Nov. 19, 2009
Chen US 2010/0207853 Al Aug. 19, 2010
Claims 1–9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, and Hsu. Final Act. 3.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Hsu, and Jeon. Id. at 14.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Hsu, and Park. Id. at 15.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Hsu, and Lin. Id. at 16.
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055

4
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Hsu, Chen, and Fujita. Id. at 18.
Claim 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Nakayoshi, and Hsu. Id. at 21.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Nakayoshi, Hsu, Chen, and Fujita. Id.
at 29.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yamada, Liao, Hsu, and Kim. Id. at 29.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error,
because “the Examiner appears to misconstrue the disclosure of Hsu.”
Appeal Br. 12. Particularly, Appellant contends “Hsu appears to merely
provide a graph showing different transmittances at the different domain sets
for the same driving voltage, which is caused by different form factors of
slits, rather than different gamma voltages that are applied to the different
domain sets,.” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 14.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, two
different voltages groups applied to different respective pixels, “wherein a
luminance difference occurring between the adjacent first and second rows
having the different domains is compensated by the different first and
second gamma reference voltage groups.” Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.); see
also Spec., Fig. 4 (voltage groups VREF1 and VREF2). The Examiner
relies on Hsu for teaching compensation of a luminance difference using
first and second voltages: “Fig. 3 of Hsu clearly shows two different curves
which show two different responses of transmittance vs voltage,” and
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055

5
“[f]urthermore, the fact that each domain area within a pixel can be applied
different gamma voltage, it means that each domain area is in fact analagous
to a pixel.” Ans. 5; see also id. at 6 (“[P]aragraph 30 of Hsu clearly shows
different gamma curves are applied to different domains in order to improve
viewing angle and it will not be repeated here.”). We agree with Appellant,
however, that the cited portions of Hsu do not depict different applied
voltages, as Hsu’s “different gamma curves of the first and second domain
sets I and II are an intended effect resulting from different form factors of
slits (alignment patterns) in the first and second domain set.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner does not establish one of ordinary skill would
understand Hsu teaches applying different voltages to compensate
luminance, as claimed. Hsu’s “FIG. 3 is a chart curve representing
relationships of voltage to normalized transmittance percentage.” Hsu ¶ 9.
Hsu uses this chart curve to show different responses of the pixels to a given
voltage. See Hsu ¶ 31 (“It can be seen from FIG. 3 that at the same driving
voltage the transmittance of the first domain set I is different from that of the
second domain set II.”) (emphasis added). The portions of Hsu cited by the
Examiner, thus, describe applying the same voltage to different pixels; Hsu’s
display is adjusted based on the difference in the pixels, rather than a
difference in voltage. See Reply Br. 4; Hsu ¶ 28 (“Because the average tilt
angles of the liquid crystal display molecules in the first and second domain
sets I and II differ, . . . . [t]his greatly reduces dramatic changes in luminance
as the viewing angle changes.”).
On this record, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Hsu
teaches or suggests a luminance difference “is compensated by the different
first and second gamma reference voltage groups,” as recited in claim 1. See
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055

6
Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner does not rely on the other applied references
for these limitations; nor does the Examiner provide a reason to modify the
references to apply both voltage groups. See Ans. 4–5. Accordingly, we are
persuaded the Examiner errs in the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. Independent claims 16 and 20 recite limitations
corresponding to the disputed limitations as claim 1, which are similarly
rejected under Hsu. See Final Act. 27, 33. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of those independent claims, or of the claims
dependent thereon.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 12 103(a) Yamada, Liao, Hsu 1–9, 12
10 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Hsu, Jeon
10
11 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Hsu, Park
11
13, 14 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Hsu, Lin
13, 14
15 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Hsu, Chen, Fujita
15
16–18 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Nakayoshi, Hsu
16–18
19 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Nakayoshi, Hsu,
Chen, Fujita
19
20 103(a) Yamada, Liao,
Hsu, Kim
20
Appeal 2020-006412
Application 16/003,055

7
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED