SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021001931 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 15/406,927 01/16/2017 BYUNG SUN KIM 8290L-20 (Po160117SM) 1009 22150 7590 03/30/2022 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC 130 WOODBURY ROAD WOODBURY, NY 11797 EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): garramone@chauiplaw.com mail@chauiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BYUNG SUN KIM, SUN JA KWON, YANG WAN KIM, HYUN AE PARK, SU JIN LEE, and JAE YONG LEE Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, 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, 3-7, 21, and 22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2 and 8-20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 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. 1. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Specification describes the field of the claimed subject matter as relating to organic light emitting display devices. Spec. 1:14-18. Specifically, Appellant describes the claimed subject matter as follows: A display device includes a substrate including a first pixel area and a second pixel area, wherein the second pixel area is located at a side of the first pixel area, first pixels located in the first pixel area and connected to first scan lines, and second pixels located in the second pixel area and connected to second scan lines, wherein the first pixels and the second pixels include pixel rows extending in a first direction, and at least one of the second scan lines is inclined with respect to the first direction. Abstract. Figure 11 is reproduced below with annotations that identify several of the claimed elements: Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 3 Figure 11 is an enlarged view of an area of an organic light emitting display device according to an embodiment of the claimed subject matter. Spec. 7:9-10. As annotated, Figure 11 depicts first and second pixel areas AA1 and AA2, respectively), first and second peripheral areas (NA1 and NA2, respectively) with first and second scan stages (SST11-SST13 and SST21-SST27, respectively) and light emission stages (EST11-EST13 and EST21-EST27, respectively) connected to pixels by scan lines and emission control lines. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 4 Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized, illustrate the claimed subject matter: 1. A display device, comprising: a substrate including a first pixel area, a second pixel area, a first peripheral area located outside the first pixel area, and a second peripheral area located outside the second pixel area; wherein the second pixel area is located at a side of the first pixel area; first scan stages located in the first peripheral area, wherein output terminals of the first scan stages are connected to first scan lines; first light emitting stages located in the first peripheral area and located at one side of the first scan stages; second scan stages located in the second peripheral area, wherein output terminals of the second scan stages are connected to second scan lines; second light emitting stages located in the second peripheral area and located at one side of the second scan stages; first pixels located in the first pixel area, wherein input terminals of the first pixels are connected to the first scan lines; and second pixels located in the second pixel area, wherein input terminals of the second pixels are connected to the second scan lines, wherein the first pixels are included in a first group of pixel rows extending in a first direction, wherein the second pixels are included in a second group of pixel rows extended extending in the first direction, wherein the first group of pixels rows is different from the second group of pixel rows, wherein a first one of the second scan lines connecting an output terminal of a first one of the second scan stages and an input terminal of a first one of the second pixels is inclined with respect to the first direction, Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 5 wherein a position of the output terminal of the first one of the second scan stages along a second direction crossing the first direction is different from a position of the input terminal of the first one of the second pixels along the second direction, and wherein a length of the first one of the second scan lines is greater than a length of each of the first scan lines, wherein the first one of the second scan stages is inclined at an angle with respect to the first direction, wherein a first one of the second light emitting stages is connected to the first one of the second pixels, and wherein the first one of the second light emitting stages is inclined at the angle with respect to the first direction. Appeal Br. 23-24 (Claims App.). 21. A display device, comprising; a substrate including a first pixel area, a second pixel area, a first peripheral area located outside the first pixel area, and a second peripheral area located outside the second pixel area, wherein the second pixel area is located at a side of the first pixel area; first scan stages located in the first peripheral area, wherein output terminals of the first scan stages are connected to first scan lines; first light emitting stages located in the first peripheral area and located at one side of the first scan stages, wherein output terminals of the first light emitting stages are connected to first light emission control lines; second scan stages located in the second peripheral area, wherein output terminals of the second scan stages are connected to second scan lines; second light emitting stages located in the second peripheral area and located at one side of the second scan stages, wherein output terminals of the second light emitting stages are connected to second light emission control lines; Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 6 first pixels located in the first pixel area, wherein input terminals of the first pixels are connected to the first scan lines and the first light emission control lines; and second pixels located in the second pixel area, wherein input terminals of the second pixels are connected to the second scan lines and the second emission control lines, wherein the first pixels are included in a first group of pixel rows extending in a first direction, wherein the second pixels are included in a second group of pixel rows extending in the first direction, wherein the first group of pixels rows is different from the second group of pixel rows, wherein a first one of the second scan lines overlaps a first number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and a second one of the second scan lines overlaps a second number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, wherein the first number is smaller than the second number and the first one of the second scan lines is located closer to the first pixel area than the second one of the second scan lines, wherein a first one of the second emission control lines overlaps a third number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and a second one of the second emission control lines overlaps a fourth number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and wherein the third number is smaller than the fourth number and the first one of the second emission control lines is located closer to the first pixel area than the second one of the second emission control lines. Appeal Br. 25-27 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 7 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nonaka US 2008/0266210 A1 Oct. 30, 2008 Anzai US 2009/0102758 A1 Apr. 23, 2009 Kim US 2013/0335397 A1 Dec. 19, 2013 Chen US 2016/0351107 A1 Dec. 1, 2016 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3-7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3- 5. 2. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as their invention. Final Act. 2-3. 3. Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nonaka and Kim. Final Act. 7-11. 4. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nonaka, Kim, and Chen. Final Act. 11-14. 5. Claim 21 stands alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nonaka, Kim, and Anzai. Final Act. 14-18. 6. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nonaka and Chen. Final Act. 18-22. 7. Claim 22 stands alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nonaka and Anzai. Final Act. 22-26. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 8 OPINION WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Claim 1 The Examiner finds that the limitations “wherein the first one of the second scan stages is inclined at an angle with respect to the first direction” and “wherein the first one of the second light emitting stages is inclined at the angle with respect to the first direction” are not described in the originally filed Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Final Act. 3-4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide adequate support for the exact shape of the second scan stages and the second light emitting stages and also which element of the second scan stages and the second light emitting stages that are inclined at an angle with respect to the first direction. Final Act. 4. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the Specification does not support the second light emitting stages being inclined at the same angle with respect to the first direction as the second scan stages. Final Act. 4-5. Appellant argues that Figure 11 and paragraphs 216 and 2262 of the originally filed application support the aforementioned limitations 2 The originally filed Specification does not include paragraph numbers. Appellant more likely is referring to paragraphs of the published patent application (US 2017/0249905 A1, Aug. 31, 2017), which is typically insufficient to show possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing of the application. However, because the cited paragraphs of the published patent application do not differ from the corresponding sections of the originally filed Specification, we hold this to be harmless error. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 9 respectively. The passages from the Specification that Appellant relies on are reproduced here for convenience: Subsequently, the second scan stages SST21 to SST27 may be arranged in a curved shape to correspond to the shape of the corner of the second peripheral area NA2. For example, some or all lines connecting the respective output terminals of the second scan stages SST21 to SST27 may be curved lines having predetermined curvatures. Spec. 49:13-17. The second light emitting stages EST21 to EST27 may be arranged in a curved shape to correspond to the second peripheral area NA2. For example, some or all lines connecting the respective output terminals of the second light emitting stages EST21 to EST27 may be curved lines having predetermined curvatures. Spec. 52:3-7. Appellant also argues that Figures 11 and 12 show the second scan stages and second light emitting stages to be inclined. Reply Br. 3-5. Specifically, Appellant argues Figures 11 and 12 show that “the bottom side of SST27 is inclined with respect to DR1.” Reply Br. 3. Similarly, Appellant argues that Figure 11 shows that “the bottom side of EST27 is inclined with respect to DR1.” Reply Br. 5. The written description requirement is satisfied where the disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had posses- sion of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). An applicant may show possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 10 claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, we agree with Appellant that Figures 11 and 12 show that the second scan stages and second light emitting stages are inclined with respect to the horizontal direction of the figures. Figure 11 reproduced above, for example, shows second scan stage and second light emitting stage SST27 and EST27, respectively, as tilted slightly at an angle with respect to the horizontal direction. Figure 12 makes this even more clear. Figure 12 is reproduced below for convenience. Figure 12 above shows an enlarged view of the scan stages SST24 and SST27 of Figure 11. Spec. 7:11-13. In Figure 12 scan stages SST24 and SST27 are angled with respect to DR1 (horizontal direction 1). This illustrates the Specification’s point that “the second scan stages SST21 to SST27 may be arranged in a curved shape to correspond to the shape of the corner of the second peripheral area NA2.” Spec. 49:13-17. The Specification similarly discloses “[t]he second light emitting stages EST21 Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 11 to EST27 may be arranged in a curved shape to correspond to the second peripheral area NA2.” Spec. 52:3-7. This also is illustrated in Figure 11. Thus, the second scan stages and the second light emitting stages are arranged in a curved shape to correspond to the same shape (i.e., the second peripheral area NA2 with its “corner”). See also Spec. 10:6-9 (“As illustrated in FIG. 1, a lower corner portion of the substrate 100 which corresponds to the second peripheral area NA2 and the second pixel area AA2 may have a curved shape with a predetermined curvature. However, the lower corner portion of the substrate 100 may also have various shapes such as an angular shape.”). Thus, the Specification as further illustrated in Figures 11 and 12, demonstrates that at the time of the filing of the application, Appellant had possession of the claimed invention where second scan stages and second light emitting stages are “inclined at an angle with respect to the first direction.” Claim 21 The Examiner interprets claim 21’s limitations reciting “wherein input terminals of the first pixels are connected to the first scan lines and the first light emission control lines” and “wherein input terminals of the second pixels are connected to the second scan lines and the second light emission control lines” to each include at least two features. Final Act. 5. For example, the Examiner concludes that the limitation “wherein input terminals of the first pixels are connected to the first scan lines and the first light emission control lines” indicates that that each of the input terminals of the first pixels are connected to one of the first scan lines and one of the light emission control lines (a one-to-one connection relationship) and also that each of the input terminals of the first pixels are connected to Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 12 all of the first scan lines and all of the first light emission control lines (a one-to-many connection relationship). Final Act. 5. Similarly, the Examiner concludes that the limitation “wherein input terminals of the second pixels are connected to the second scan lines and the second light emission control lines” indicates that each of input terminals of the second pixels are connected to one of the second scan lines and one of the second light emission control lines (a one-to-one connection relationship) and also that each of input terminals of the second pixels are connected to all of the second scan lines and all of the second light emission control lines (a one-to-many connection relationship). Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that the originally filed Specification does not disclose or adequately support the above limitations as interpreted by the Examiner. Appellant argues that Figure 11 shows input terminals of the first pixels PXL1 connected to first scan lines S and first light emission control lines E and also shows input terminals of second pixels PXL2 connected to second scan lines S and second light emission control lines E. Appeal Br. 13. Figure 11, the Examiner responds, shows only the one-to-one relationship (i.e., that an input terminal of one of the first pixels connected to one of the corresponding one of the first scan lines and another input terminal of the one of the first pixels connected to one of the corresponding one of the first light emission control lines) but not the one-to-many relationship. Ans. 5. Based on Appellant’s arguments, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner concludes that the aforementioned limitations of claim Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 13 21 include two features, i.e., that they encompass both a one-to-one and a one-to-many relationship between the input terminals of the pixels and the scan lines and emission control lines. We agree that the scope of the claim is broad enough to encompass both “features.” For example, the phrase does not limit whether each input terminal is connected to only one first scan line, multiple first scan lines, or all first scan lines. Appellant relies on Figure 11 as support for the disputed limitations. Figure 11 alone fails to sufficiently disclose the full scope of this limitation. Figure 11 shows that each first pixel (those in the first pixel area) is connected to a single first scan line and a single first emission control line and that each second pixel is connected to a single second scan line and a single second emission control line. Thus, the configuration depicted in Figure 11 shows that the input terminals of pixels are connected to the scan lines and input control lines in a one-to-one relationship. Claim 21, however, is broader and encompasses one-to-many connections and indeed other configurations as well. In order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”). Here, we determine the depiction of pixels connected to scan lines and emission control lines on a one-to-one basis is insufficient to show possession of other configurations as well. Given the claim interpretation, Appellant’s reliance on Figure 11 fails to show any error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 14 INDEFINITENESS Claim 21 Claim 21 recites “wherein input terminals of the first pixels are connected to the first scan lines and the first light emission control lines.” The Examiner concludes this limitation is indefinite because it could be referring to at least three or more configurations, including (1) each of the input terminals is connected to one of the first scan lines and one of the first light emission control lines, (2) each of the first input terminals is correspondingly connected to one of the first scan lines and each of the second input terminals of the first pixels is correspondingly connected to one of the first light emission control lines, or (3) each of the input terminals is connected to all of the first scan lines and all of the first light emission control lines. Final Act. 2-3. In other words, the Examiner concludes that, as between input terminals of the first pixels and their connections to first scan lines and first emission control lines, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to a (1) many-to-one connection relationship, (2) a one-to-one connection relationship, or (3) a one-to-many connection relationship. The Examiner makes a similar conclusion with respect to the limitation reciting: “wherein input terminals of the second pixels are connected to the second scan lines and the second light emission control lines.” Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that Figure 11 shows input terminals of the first and second pixels (PXL1 and PXL2) connected to first and second scan lines S and first and second light emission control lines E, respectively. Appeal Br. 14. Thus, according to Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Appeal Br. 14. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 15 We are persuaded of Examiner error. A “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” Ex parte McAward, Case No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential as to § I.B) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claim language, as drafted, is broad enough to encompass all three configurations that the Examiner identifies in the final rejection. For example, the phrase does not limit whether each input terminal is connected to only one first scan line, multiple first scan lines, or all first scan lines. However, “breadth is not to be equated with indefiniteness.” In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). The fact that the claim limitation is broad enough to encompass the three or more configurations identified by the Examiner does not make the limitation indefinite. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as indefinite. OBVIOUSNESS Claim 1 The Examiner finds Nonaka teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 except that it is “silent to the electroluminescent display device comprising light emitting stages, as claimed.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds, however, that Kim teaches a display comprising a light emission control driver 20 located in the peripheral area and including a plurality of light emitting stages connected to the plurality of pixels 50 and supplying light emission control signals to the corresponding pixels thus controlling the light emission of the pixels by the light emission control signal. Final Act. 9 (citing Kim, ¶ 41, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that Kim discloses that the emission control lines are parallel to the gate/scan lines and the light Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 16 emission control driver and the gate driver can be disposed at the same side of the pixel area or at both sides of the pixel area. Final Act. 10 (citing Kim ¶¶ 41-43). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of basic geometry “would have recognized that, for two elements/lines being parallel with each other, if one of the two elements/lines is inclined at an angle with respect to a direction another of the two elements/lines is also inclined at the same angle.” Ans. 7. Because Nonaka teaches that the second scan stages are inclined at an angle with respect to the first direction, the Examiner finds that “[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention of the pending application to utilize the . . . teachings of Kim and Nonaka to obtain . . . ‘the first one of the second light emitting stages is inclined at the angle with respect to the first direction.’” Final Act. 10. Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide a reasoned analysis, supported by the evidence of record, as to why the light emission control driver 20 would be inclined at an angle, much less why the angle would be the same as that of a scan stage. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s reasoning that if two elements/lines are parallel to each other and one element/line was inclined at an angle, then the other would also have to be inclined at the same angle, “is not sufficient to provide the suggestion and/or motivation to arrange the emission control driver 20 and shift register 100 at the same angle.” Reply Br. 9. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning why the combination of Nonaka and Kim would teach a first one of the second scan stages inclined at an angle and a first one of the Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 17 second light emitting stages inclined at the same angle as required by claim 1. For example, the Examiner finds that Nonaka teaches that a first one of the second scan stages is inclined at an angle with respect to the first direction. Final Act. 9 (citing Nonaka, Figs. 9, 10, and 13). The Examiner then acknowledges that Nonaka does not teach the claimed second light emitting stages and instead relies on Kim for this teaching. Final Act. 9 (citing Kim ¶ 41, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that each of the emission control lines of Kim “are parallel to the gate/scan lines and the light emission control driver and the gate driver can be disposed at the same side of the pixel area or at both sides of the pixel area and facing each other.” Final Act. 10 (citing Kim ¶¶ 41-43). When this teaching is combined with Nonaka’s teaching of an inclined second scan stage, the Examiner finds that, in the combination, the second light emitting stage would also be inclined at the same angle as the second scan stage with respect to the first direction. Final Act. 10. The Examiner explains, one of ordinary skill having a basic knowledge of geometry would have recognized that in order for Kim’s gate/scan lines to remain parallel to its light emission control lines, the light emission control driver (the claimed second light emitting stage) would be inclined at the same angle as the second scan stage, which is inclined as taught by Nonaka. Ans. 7. If Kim’s gate driver were inclined as taught by Nonaka, it does not necessarily follow that Kim’s light emission control driver would be inclined at the same angle in order for Kim’s gate/scan lines to remain parallel to the its light emission control lines. In other words, Kim’s gate/scan lines S1-Sn could remain parallel to its light emission control lines E1-En even if Kim’s Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 18 gate driver and light emission control driver were inclined at different angles. Accordingly, without more reasoning or evidence we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Nonaka and Kim. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-7, which depend on claim 1. Claim 21 The Examiner finds that Nonaka and Kim teach all the limitations of claim 21 except for the following limitations: wherein a first one of the second scan lines overlaps a first number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and a second one of the second scan lines overlaps a second number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, wherein the first number is smaller than the second number and the first one of the second scan lines is located closer to the first pixel area than the second one of the second scan lines, wherein a first one of the second emission control lines overlaps a third number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and a second one of the second emission control lines overlaps a fourth number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and wherein the third number is smaller than the fourth number and the first one of the second emission control lines is located closer to the first pixel area than the second one of the second emission control lines. Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds that Chen discloses a display device that comprises a substrate including first and second pixel areas with first and second pixels connected to first scan lines and second scan lines Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 19 respectively. Final Act. 12-13 (citing Chen ¶ 24, Figs. 5, 8, and 13). Furthermore, the Examiner finds Chen teaches wherein a first one of the second scan lines overlaps a first number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and a second one of the second scan lines overlaps a second number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, wherein the first number is smaller than the second number and the first one of the second scan lines is located closer to the first pixel area than the second one of the second scan lines. Final Act. 13 (citing Chen Figs. 5, 8, 13). The Examiner finds that Figures 5, 8, and 13 of Chen disclose a first one of the second scan lines overlapping three data lines D before reaching its corresponding closest pixel 32 and a second one of the second scan lines overlaps four data lines D before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel. Final Act. 13 (citing Chen, Figs. 5, 8, 13). The Examiner acknowledges that Chen does not teach: wherein a first one of the second emission control lines overlaps a third number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and a second one of the second emission control lines overlaps a fourth number of data lines before reaching its corresponding closest second pixel, and wherein the third number is smaller than the fourth number and the first one of the second emission control lines is located closer to the first pixel area than the second one of the second emission control lines. Final Act. 14. The Examiner however, finds that because Kim discloses the emission control lines being parallel to the corresponding gate/scan lines and the light emission control stages located at one side of the corresponding scan stages, the above limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 20 art in light of the combination of teachings of Nonaka, Kim, and Chen. Final Act. 14. Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to provide a reasoned analysis of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain the limitations above relating to the second emission control lines. Appeal Br. 19. Specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he fact that Kim discloses the emission control lines being parallel to the corresponding gate/scan lines and the light emission control stages located at one side of the corresponding scan stages has no bearing whatsoever on configuring emission control lines to overlap different numbers of data lines.” Appeal Br. 19. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Specifically, the Examiner combines Kim’s light emission control driver with the teachings of Chen above. The Examiner finds Chen teaches second scan lines overlapping a number of data lines as recited in claim 21 and Appellant does not dispute this finding. The Examiner further finds that Kim teaches the emission control lines being parallel to the corresponding gate/scan lines and the light emission control stages located at one side of the corresponding scan stages. Final Act. 14 (citing Kim ¶¶ 41-43). Because Kim’s gate driver and light emission control driver may be formed at the same side of the pixel unit, Kim’s light emitting control stages are combined with Chen, the number of data lines overlapped by the light emission control lines would be the same as those overlapped by the scan lines, which correspond with the recited numbers of claim 21. The Examiner makes similar findings with respect to the rejection of claim 21 over Nonaka, Kim, and Anzai. Final Act. 17. In response to the Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 21 rejection over Anzai, Appellant makes the same arguments focusing on the Examiner’s findings relating to Kim as summarized above. Appeal Br. 19- 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as obvious over the combination of Nonaka, Kim, and Chen and as obvious over the combination of Nonaka, Kim, and Anzai. Claim 22 Claim 22 recites wherein a first one of the second scan lines connecting an output terminal of a first one of the second scan stages and an input terminal of a corresponding closest one of the second pixels has an inclined portion with respect to the first direction, and wherein the inclined portion overlaps data lines before reaching the input terminal of the corresponding closest one of the second pixels Appeal Br. 28. The Examiner finds Nonaka teaches that a first one of the second scan lines connecting to the second scan stage and a corresponding closest second pixel has an inclined portion with respect to vertical direction. Final Act. 19 (citing Nonaka, Figs. 8, 13, and 14). The Examiner finds, however, that Nonaka is silent with respect to the inclined portion of the second scan line overlapping data lines before reaching the corresponding closest second pixel. Final Act. 20. Thus, the Examiner combines Nonaka with Chen, which, as explained before, the Examiner finds teaches second scan lines that overlap with data lines before reaching the corresponding closest second pixel. Final Act. 20-21 (citing Chen, Figs. 5, 8, and 13). Appellant argues “Chen just discloses scan lines that overlap data lines in a circular device. Further, the alleged inclined portions of the scan Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 22 lines disclosed by Nonaka, are provided in non-display areas away from the display section 1.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues that [t]he circular shape, if anything, would suggest to a designer in view of Nonaka and Chen, to keep any bent scan line portions outside the display area so that the shift registers can be positioned around the circular display section. This is the antithesis of what is claimed in claim 22 and correspondingly shown in FIGS. 11 and 12 of AOFA above, i.e., bent lines encroaching on the display area. Appeal Br. 21. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the Examiner that Nonaka teaches a first one of the second scan lines connecting to second scan stage and a corresponding closest second pixel has an inclined portion with respect to vertical direction. Nonaka, Figs. 13, 14 (showing scan lines that are bent or inclined nearest the shift registers). When combined with Chen, we agree that the inclined portion of Nonaka’s scan lines would overlap data lines before reaching the pixels. Appellant’s argument that the bent scan lines of Nonaka would be outside the display area does not address whether they would overlap Chen’s data lines. Initially we note Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning why the bent or inclined portion of the scan lines in the combination of Chen and Nonaka would be outside the display area. Nevertheless, even if we were to assume that in the combination of Nonaka and Chen the bent or inclined portion of the scan lines would be outside the display area, the claim does not require that the overlap of scan lines with data lines occur inside the display area. The claim only requires that the inclined portion overlaps data lines before reaching the closest one of the second pixels. Appeal 2021-001931 Application 15/406,927 23 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 as obvious over Nonaka and Chen. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 over Nonaka and Anzai. Thus, for the same reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 as obvious over Nonaka and Anzai. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 21 112(a) Written Description 21 1, 3-7 21 112(b) Indefiniteness 21 1, 3-7 103 Nonaka, Kim 1, 3-7 21 103 Nonaka, Kim, Chen 21 21 103 Nonaka, Kim, Anzai 21 22 103 Nonaka, Chen 22 22 103 Nonaka, Anzai 22 Overall Outcome 21, 22 1, 3-7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART