UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte JUN-WOO LEE, CHANG-HUN LEE, HEE-SEOP KIM, and EUN-HEE HAN

Transcription

1

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN-WOO LEE, CHANG-HUN LEE, HEE-SEOP KIM, and EUN-HEE HAN Appeal Technology Center 2600 Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL

3 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134 from a rejection of claims We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to liquid crystal display. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A liquid crystal display comprising: a first insulation substrate forming a plurality of pixels and having switching elements connected to gate lines and data lines, and a plurality of pixel electrodes to which data voltages are applied by operations of the switching elements; a second insulation substrate facing the first insulation substrate; and a liquid crystal layer injected between the first insulation substrate and the second insulation substrate, and having a bend arrangement in which symmetry is formed with respect to a center area between the first insulation substrate and the second insulation substrate, wherein the plurality of pixels are arranged in a pixel matrix, and wherein the pixel matrix includes a normal data pixel row to which a normal image data voltage for displaying an image is applied, a black data pixel row to which a black gray data voltage is applied, and a middle pixel row to which the normal image data voltage and the black gray data voltage are applied together. 2

4 appeal is: REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on Lyu US 2002/ Al Feb. 21, 2002 Son US 2003/ Al Jan. 9, 2003 REJECTIONS The Examiner has withdrawn the anticipation rejection of claims 1 3 based upon the Lee reference. The Examiner made the following rejections that are still pending: Claims 1 5 and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Son. Claims 6 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Son and Lyu. ANALYSIS Anticipation At the outset, we note that independent claims 1 and are directed to Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) apparatus and Appellants' proffered distinctions are directed to "wherein" clauses regarding when and where signals are applied rather than to the structure of the LCD apparatus. With this in mind, we address Appellants' contentions. With respect to independent claims 1 and 10 12, Appellants argue the claims as a group. (App. Br. 20). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group, and will address Appellants' arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii). 3

5 Only those arguments actually made by the Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which the Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii). Appellants contend that: Claims 1 and 10 12; Son does not teach "wherein the pixel matrix includes a normal data pixel row to which a normal image data voltage for displaying an image is applied, a black data pixel row to which a black gray data voltage is applied, and a middle pixel row to which the normal image data voltage and the black gray data voltage are applied together." (App. Br. 20). Appellants further contend that the Son reference describes: Each overlapped scanning line receives either actual image information or black image information; none of the overlapped scanning lines receive both actual image information and black image information together... nowhere is a gate pulse corresponding to both black image information and actual image information applied[].... As shown in FlG. 7, each scanning line (e.g., G 1, G 2, G 3, G 4, G 5 ) receives either actual image information or black image information. (App. Br ; see also Reply Br. 3 6). The Examiner maintains that gate signal G 3 receives both actual image data and black image data together. (Ans. 9). Examiner identifies element 126b in figure 7. This element depicts a gate line on voltage that occurs during the sending of both a black reset image and actual image data. Furthermore, as shown by figure 8A, a pixel in a given row is driven by both a black signal and a 4

6 pixel voltage. During one gate pulse the pixel is driven first with a black voltage and then with a pixel voltage. (Id.). We agree with the Examiner's finding. Appellants contend that the Examiner's interpretation of Figures 8A and 8B to show a pixel row receiving both actual image information and black image information together at the same time is incorrect. (App. Br. 22). We find Appellants' argument pertaining to "same time" to be beyond the express language of representative independent claim 1 which merely states "together." We find that the claimed "together" is met by applying sequential signals within the same gate signal timeframe. Therefore, Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation by the Son reference. With respect to dependent claims 2, 4, and 5, Appellants merely repeat the language of the claim and provide general arguments for patentability which are based upon the arguments advanced with respect to representative independent claim 1. (App. Br ; Reply Br. 7). We find these arguments to not be specific arguments for patentability. The Examiner further maintains that Appellants admit that Figures 6 and 7 disclose moving down one row per cycle, and Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner and group these claims as falling with representative claim 1. With respect to dependent claims 3 and 13, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 12. Since we found Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive of error for claim 1, we group these claims as falling with their respective parent claims. (App. Br. 25). 5

7 Obviousness With respect to dependent claims 6 9, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. Since we found Appellants' arguments unpersuasive for independent claim 1, we find Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 1 5 and based upon anticipation, and (ii) claims 6 9 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's (i) anticipation rejection of claims 1 5 and 10 13, and (ii) obviousness rejection of claims 6 9 are sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc 6