T 1700/13 22-07-2014

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This is an appeal against the refusal of European patent application No. 07 122 898 for the reason of added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC).

II. The appellant requested in writing that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of claim 1 filed with the statement of grounds of appeal.

Auxiliarily, oral proceedings were requested.

III. The sole claim of this request reads as follows (emphasis added by the board):

"1. An active matrix type display device comprising:

first to sixth gate lines (GL1-GL6) arranged at one direction;

data lines (DL1-DLm) arranged orthogonally to the first to sixth gate lines (GL1-GL6);

a first red pixel cell (R1) connected to the first gate line (GL1) and the data line (DL1), wherein the first red pixel cell (R1) displays red color;

a first green pixel cell (G1) connected to the second gate line (GL2) and the data line (DL1), wherein the first green pixel cell (G1) displays green color;

a first blue pixel cell (B1) connected to the third gate line (GL3) and the data line (DL1), wherein the first blue pixel cell (B1) displays blue color;

a second blue pixel cell (B2) connected to the fourth gate line (GL4) and the data line (DL1), wherein the second blue pixel cell (B2) displays blue color;

a second green pixel cell (G2) connected to the fifth gate line (GL5) and the data line (DL1), wherein the second green pixel cell (G2) displays green color; and

a second red pixel cell (R2) connected to the sixth gate line (GL6) and the data line (DL1), wherein the second red pixel cell (R2) displays red color,

wherein the first red pixel cell (R1), the first green pixel cell (G1) and the first blue pixel cell (B1) constitute a first unit pixel (PXL1) for displaying a first unit image;

and the second red pixel cell (R2), the second green pixel cell (G2) and the second blue pixel cell (B2) constitute a second unit pixel (PXL2) for displaying a second unit image;

wherein the first red pixel cell (R1) and the first green pixel cell (G1) are positioned between the first and second gate lines (GL1, GL2);

wherein the first blue pixel cell (Bl) and the second blue pixel cell (B2) are positioned between the third and fourth gate lines (GL3, GL4);

wherein the second green pixel cell (G2) and the second red pixel cell (R2) are positioned between the fifth and sixth gate lines (GL5, GL6);

wherein a pixel electrode of the first red pixel cell (R1) is positioned closer to the first gate line (GL1) than to the second gate line (GL2), while a pixel electrode of the first green pixel cell (G1) is positioned closer to the second gate line (GL2) than to the first gate line (GL1);

wherein a pixel electrode of the first blue pixel cell (Bl) is positioned closer to the third gate line (GL3) than to the fourth gate line (GL4), while a pixel electrode of the second blue pixel cell (B2) is positioned closer to the fourth gate line (GL4) than to the third gate line (GL3);

wherein a pixel electrode of the second green pixel cell (G2) is positioned closer to the fifth gate line (GL5) than to the sixth gate line (GL6), while a pixel electrode of the second red pixel cell (R2) is positioned closer to the sixth gate line (GL6) than to the fifth gate line (GL5)."

IV. The decision of the examining division can be summarized as follows:

- Claim 1 was amended to specify the relative positions of the pixel electrodes with respect to the gate lines, ie the features highlighted in bold in claim 1 (see point III above).

- The applicant argued that the relations between these distances were disclosed in figure 7. Although figure 5 showed the connections of the pixels to the gate lines and to the data lines in a merely schematic way, figure 7 showed the arrangement of the pixels in a more detailed way, as it also showed the indentations in the pixel electrodes which accommodated the transistors. Hence also the different spacings between the pixel electrodes and the gate lines should be regarded as intentionally disclosed features in that figure.

- The examining division however found that although figure 7 showed different distances between the pixel electrodes and their adjacent gate lines, it was merely a schematic drawing of the connections of the pixel cells to the respective gate lines and to the data line and did not provide any detailed information about the sizes and distances in a real layout of the pixel matrix on a substrate. The data lines, the gate lines and the transistors were only represented by their abstract symbols. Furthermore, although figure 7 showed the pixel arrangement in more detail than figure 5, only the electrical connections were more detailed. From the description, the skilled person learned that the present invention sought to reduce the fabrication cost of the active matrix display, by reducing the number of high-priced data driving integrated circuits, and increasing the number of relatively low-priced gate driving integrated circuits. This object was achieved by connecting two columns of pixels to a single data line and increasing the number of gate lines, as depicted in figure 7. The schematic pixel arrangement of figure 7 was therefore only useful to understand how the different pixels were electrically connected by transistors to the data line and the respective gate lines. This figure was not intended to show the layout of the active matrix display in terms of the physical sizes and positions of electrodes.

V. The appellant argued essentially as follows:

- The subject-matter of independent claim 1 constituted subject-matter which was unambiguously derivable from the original application documents, since figure 7 was not merely a schematic drawing. Although the figures included graphical symbols for, for example, the connecting lines and the transistors, every single pixel electrode was depicted in its concrete and exact shape with a recess for accommodating the thin film transistor (TFT) between the pixel electrode and the respective gate line to which the pixel electrode was connected by the TFT. Additionally, it was not stated anywhere in the description that the figures were schematic.

- Furthermore, as could be deduced from figure 3, showing another pixel structure, distances between the pixel electrode and the gate line, to which the pixel electrode was connected by a TFT, were smaller than distances between the respective pixel electrode and the gate line, to which the pixel electrode was not connected by the TFT. While figures 2 and 5 showed and paragraphs 33 and 54 talked about "pixel cells", it could be clearly seen that figures 3 and 4 and figures 6 and 7 disclosed "pixel electrodes", as further evidenced by paragraph 39. Thus, it was clear that figures 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the application showed a higher level of detail and structural accuracy than figures 2 and 5, since the former figures showed a notch in the pixel electrode to allow for placement of other components. This meant, that looking at the application as a whole, it was clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the different distances between the pixel electrodes and their adjacent gate lines as shown in figure 7 would not be interpreted as being drawing artifacts of a mere schematic representation of a pixel matrix. Therefore, the arrangement of the electrodes in figure 7 represented the correct relative distances as found in the real layout drawing.

- In summary, the distances between the pixel electrodes and the respective gate lines were not drawing artifacts as interpreted by the examining division, but depicted the proportions necessary to avoid parasitic capacities, even though this relationship might not be mentioned explicitly in the description as originally filed and even though data lines, scan lines, and transistors were represented by their respective graphical symbol.

VI. In the communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings the board observed that the application disclosed all the figures to be diagrams, making no difference between eg figures 5 and 7 ([0015]-[0022]). A diagram, however, was a graphic design that explained rather than represented something.

VII. With letter dated 5 June 2014 the appellant informed the board that it would not attend the oral proceedings, making no further substantive comments.

VIII. Oral proceedings were held in the absence of the appellant.