[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
Okay, our final case this morning is number 17-1436 in Ray Dai.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wang.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
Mr. Court, I'm George Wang for Appellant.

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
In this case, the board of a PTO met two errors, which requires reversal.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
First, the board improperly shift the burden of proof to the opponent before the examiner made an official case that they claim the invention is impassionable.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
Second, the board... Your argument.

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
in the brief seems to rest on the notion that the board erroneously found that MEDA discloses a single chip that has everything on it except for one item.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
But in fact, if you look at 27 and 28 of the appendix, which is the examiner's answer, which was approved by the board,

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
the examiner makes clear responding to the argument that Maeda doesn't disclose such a chip that it still would have been obvious even though he would have to put things on the chip which Maeda doesn't explicitly disclose.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I believe that the board never get the issue of obviousness and that's our bring back to the second area of the board met and

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
The board adopted in its entirety the examiner's funding for facts and the conclusion of the law without knowing what is the examiner's findings and the conclusions.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
I think they were confused with anticipation and obviousness in this case.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
For that, I would like to... The board did issue a decision, right?

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
The board issued a decision?

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
The board issued a decision adopting the examiner's conclusions as his own.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
And for that, I would- What's wrong with the examiner's conclusions as adopted by the board?

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
Because that never made a public official case of obviousness.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
And I'd like to direct the court's attention to the appendix, page four,

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
last paragraph, where the board stated, I quote, in particular, opponents have not provided persuasive evidence to distinguish pixel electrodes and the driver circuit formed on a semiconductor substrates told by a meter from the integrated color alcohol's display chip as claimed.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
And that statement implies that the examiner had made a promificial case that the meter disclosed something that is indistinguishable from the trip as claimed.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
The question is, where in the record can you find that the examiner made such a case?

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
The answer is nowhere.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
Well, the examiner, on pages three and four of the answer, which are cited by the board,

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
made a determination that even though MATA doesn't disclose putting all these things, say one item on a chip, that it would have been obvious to do that.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
And what's wrong with the examiner's conclusion in that respect?

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
The examiner's incorrectness is that the examiner never recognized that the difference between the claimed chip is the single chip.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
integrate several functionalities in a single chip.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
That's not true.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
I mean, he specifically recites that argument that you made on Appendix 27, and then he says he doesn't agree with it.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
Even though Meta doesn't disclose having all these things on a single chip, it would have been obvious to combine them onto a single chip, because Meta talks about combining various features onto a chip.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
Excuse me.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
Paragraph you refer in page 28 the examiner disagrees with appellant's premises and conclusions Yes, the examiner of course always disagrees, but For example, we but that's he asked me which paragraph I'm just identifying which I'm sorry I apologize not that language the language and the rest of the paragraph That it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
try to integrate the display chip on a single chip or plural chips with reasonable expectation of success?

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
On the record, there's nothing there to show that it is obvious to take the opponent from Glenn into the meter device.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
But that is not even the most important thing in this case.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
In this case, the difference, the major difference is that

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
The MEDA device is a separate component.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
Our device is a single chip.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
That's the focus we try to make clear to the examiner.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
That was the exact argument that the examiner was responding to.

[00:06:54] Speaker 03:
So I disagree with that.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
And he explains why.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
I disagree with that.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
Examiner citing paragraph 6 of MEDA reference.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
And if you look at the paragraph 6 of a meter reference, that paragraph 6 refers to a component, which is just one component, which is necessary to display, to perform the function of a single chip.

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
Actually, that paragraph 6 refers to the AOCORS display device, which is corresponding to

[00:07:34] Speaker 00:
RGB, which is corresponding to one of the five component resided in the claim, which is also paragraph six is not the entire meter device.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
It's one of seven meter device component.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
So there, the examiner confused part of the component with the entire component, which is the relationship between what is disclosed in paragraph six

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
And the media device itself is a part of what's at the hall.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
That's the difference.

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
And as you can see clearly, the board even not get clear.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
He said, ask us to rebuttal the examiner's position.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
But the examiner never said that the

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
claim that the leader has disclosed that device, which comprise every element recited in the claim.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
And how can we rebut something that did not even put forward by the examiner?

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
And from that same sentence in the decision, also implies that the examiner's rejection was made of Section 102, anticipation.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
And the record indicated otherwise, the examiner rejected

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
claim under Section 1 with three obviousness, he never made any anticipation rejections.

[00:09:06] Speaker 00:
And with that, the board shortcut the analysis process.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
The board never goes to address the issues that is relates to the obviousness.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
For example, that there's no motivation to incorporate the true reference.

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
And also, the media reference itself

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
has teaching away from integration into a single chip.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
Because for the purpose of the meter device, it cannot be integrated in the single device.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
And the opponent device, as recited in the claim, is a single device.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
So because of those errors, the board's decision cannot be correct.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
And he never gets into the issues

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
that raised by the opponent, the issues before the board.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
Subject to any questions you may have, I reserve my time for rebuttal.

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Wang.

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
Warman?

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
This is the way I see this case.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
Appellant claims that the novel feature of their application is the idea of chip integration.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
The examiner looked to the made a reference, found that it disclosed multiple instances of chip integration, not necessarily the specific components described in the claim, but still found that based on those references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to try to integrate

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
display circuit reciting claim eight and this was as your honor stated this was in the examiner's answer on Appendix pages 27 and 28 well looking at claim made I mean there's a claim even Limit all of this to a single chip does it say that is a single chip?

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
claimed on here this was a

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
kind of the story of the prosecution.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
The original claim just said, at the beginning, a color Elkos display chip.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
And it changed it to an integrator.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
It's the word integrated that implies that it's on a single chip.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
And that was added after the final rejection.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
So the office has treated this as claiming all these components on a single chip.

[00:11:46] Speaker 02:
And the examiner addressed this issue as well.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
And after the final rejection and advisory action, the examiner cited

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
multiple instances and made a reference disclosing chip integration.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
And then, as we talked about in the examiner's answer, he provided a rationale for why one of ordinary skill would find this obvious, which the board adopted.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
The thing that I was always looking for in this case was there was nothing in the application, nothing in the briefing to the board, nothing in the briefing to this court explaining

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
why integrating these components couldn't have been done in the prior art, what problem was overcome by this application, why this was just a novel feature.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
Given the lack of any claim that chip integration, that they solved some problem that allowed for chip integration, I think it's sufficient to look at the prior art instances of chip integration and say that,

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
Given that, it would have been obvious for one of our new skill in the art to try to integrate these claim components.

[00:12:56] Speaker 01:
There's nothing further.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Foreman.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wang, anything more?

[00:13:07] Speaker 00:
The first issue I'd like to address, my friend raised the amendment.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
On this case, it's unnecessary.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
The opponent amended this claim because we just tried to avoid unnecessary dispute on that because originally it's reciting a chip.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
A chip, by definition, is integrated service.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
There's nothing complicated about that.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
But the examiner initially didn't see that once we argued that

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
He said, you didn't say integrated.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
We say, we're citing it's on the record that the definition, what is the chip, which is in the record.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
And in addition, otherwise, the examiner will say, this is a new matter.

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
There is no new matter raised by the examiner.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
The second issue, the council of PTO

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
Again, it's just like the board, shift the burden.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
He asked the applicant to say why this integration is non-obvious.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
Instead of, I think the law requires the patent office to come forward to carry out a prima facie case on why this ship integration is obvious.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
That he hasn't done.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
Nothing in the record.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
In the record, you can show we have distinguished the claimed chip from paragraph 6.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
Paragraph 6 is a true component.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
It's a pixel combined with the circuit, which just turns the pixel on and off, which is only part of several functionality, which is incorporated in the claimed chip.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
the board seems to suggest that paragraph six is indistinguishable from what is claimed.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
It is just, if anyone read that, you would know that they're just a part versus a whole.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
And I would emphasize the component referenced in meta paragraph six is corresponding to RGB executive circuit.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
resulted in the clang.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
That is, one of the five specific components resulted in the clang.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
Also, the component, the integrated chip referenced in paragraph six is also one of the seven components, the Midas device, that has seven separate ones.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
That the paragraph six component is just one of the seven.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
based its decision on the examiner's finding that the CHIP referenced in paragraph six is indistinguishable from what was recited in claim eight.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
That is a sole independent claim in this case.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
That is clearly incorrect.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
And also, counsel addressed that the reason why that the seven

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
different thing, you try to integrate them in a single chip.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
It's obvious.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
In the red brief, they said it's a design choice.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
It is not.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
And integrating circuitry on a chip is not like you plug in the Lego blocks and always involve the modification of the underlying circuit.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
And there is a clear reference in the record, in the mida reference itself.

[00:17:07] Speaker 00:
the reference resided by the examiner as obviousness.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
This is on the appendix, page 43.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
there the meta-reference itself says, what I'm reading at is the paragraph 10 of meta-reference.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
What this says that I just read it, in order to equalize the length of signal lines to plural liquid crystal display panel respectively, a circuit for increased frame frequency and the liquid crystal panel drive control circuit for controlling the liquid

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
crystal panel are disposed on separate circuit boards to be independent from other circuits.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
And the reference continues that with such arrangement it is possible to suppress the problems of noise and EMI-EMC, which stands for electromagnetic interference, electromagnetic compatibility.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
In other words, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, any circuit will carry with it some amount of electromagnetic field.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
If when you integrate them on a single chip, there were interference.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
And a certain circuit is OK.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
You can put them together.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
But some may not be OK.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
And in this case, it's just the meter says for his device.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
you cannot integrate them on the single circuit.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
If you do, there was the issue of the interference.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
And there are numerous examples, which I cited in my gray brief, that, for example, the circuitry with a large capacitor, you cannot be integrated with other circuitries.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
There were too much inference.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
So there's- Okay, thank you, Mr. Wang, we're out of time.

[00:19:31] Speaker 03:
Thank both counsels.