Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2021

2020006421 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
15/476,812 03/31/2017 Zhen Zhang P25882USC1 7356
65015 7590 07/28/2021
Treyz Law Group
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy
#103-621
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
CAO, PHAT X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2021 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):
patents@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHEN ZHANG, YI TAO,
PAUL S. DRZAIC, and JOSHUA G. WURZEL
____________

Appeal 2020-006421
Application 15/476,812
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, 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 twice reject claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9–14, and 17–23. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006421
Application 15/476,812

2
The invention generally relates to displays on flexible substrates that
are bent to hide inactive components along the edge, away from view.
Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1 illustrates the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A display, comprising:

a flexible substrate having first and second portions and having
a curved portion interposed between the first and second portions;

an array of pixels on the first portion of the flexible substrate;

metal traces on the flexible substrate that extend across the
curved portion;

first and second polymer layers interposed between the first and
second portions of the flexible substrate, wherein the first and
second polymer layers have respective first and second edge
surfaces that face towards the curved portion of the flexible
substrate; and

an adhesive layer interposed between the first and second
polymer layers, wherein the adhesive layer has a first surface that
contacts the first polymer layer and a second surface that contacts
the second polymer layer, wherein the adhesive layer has a third
edge surface that faces towards the curved portion of the flexible
substrate, and wherein a gap separates the curved portion of the
flexible substrate from the first, second, and third edge surfaces.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–
5, 7, 9–14, and 17–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yu (US
2014/0131897 A1, published May 15, 2014), Kim (US 2014/0306941 A1,
published Oct. 16, 2014), and Okazaki (JP 2006-349788, published Dec. 28,
2006), from the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action dated September 16,
2019.
Appeal 2020-006421
Application 15/476,812

3

OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Non-Final Action
and the Answer, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1,
3–5, 7, 9–14, and 17–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for essentially the reasons
Appellant presents. We add the following for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 7 are each directed to a display, comprising a flexible
substrate with a curved region between two portions of the flexible substrate,
first and second polymer layers on the flexible substrate, and an adhesive
layer interposed between the first and second polymer layers. Claim 14,
directed to an organic light-emitting diode display, includes substantially
similar limitations to the flexible substrate, polymer layers, and adhesive
layer(s) recited in the display of claims 1 and 7.
The dispositive issue of this case is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been obvious
to include an adhesive layer interposed between the first and second polymer
layers of the flexible substrate of Yu?
We answer this question in the affirmative. We select claim 1 as
representative of the rejected subject matter.
We refer to the Examiner’s Non-Final Action for a complete
statement of the rejection on appeal. Non-Final Act. 3–10.
Briefly, the Examiner finds Yu teaches the display structure including
a flexible substrate with a curved region between first and second portions of
the flexible substrate, and first and second polymer layers interposed
between the first and second portions of the flexible substrate, but is silent to
Appeal 2020-006421
Application 15/476,812

4
the inclusion of an adhesive layer interposed between the first and second
polymer layers. Non-Final Act. 3–4; see also id. at 5, 8. The Examiner
relies upon Okazaki to teach the known use an adhesive layer between the
first and second polymer layers of a flexible substrate. Id. at 4; see also id.
at 6, 9.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Yu and include an adhesive
layer interposed between the first and second polymer layers of the flexible
substrate to adhere the polymer layers together to provide a warpage control
structure that would maintain the bending structure during the module
processing of the device.2 Id. at 4; see also id. at 6, 9
In the Appeal and Reply Briefs, Appellant argues the proposed
modification to include an adhesive layer between the first and second
polymer layers of Yu would fix the bending position of the flexible substrate
and would not allow the substrate to move, rendering Yu inoperable.
Appeal Br. 7–8, Reply Br. 2–3.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. Independent claims 1, 7,
and 14 each require an adhesive layer to be interposed between the first and
second polymer layers. Yu teaches a flex substrate including warpage
control devices (330, 340) to limit warpage or bow of a flex substrate to
maintain the integrity of the electrical connections between a device and the
flex substrate, where the warpage control devices include a polymer layer.

2 A discussion of Kim is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. The
Examiner relies upon Kim as teaching an array of pixels on the first portion,
and metal traces across the curved portion, of the flexible substrate,
respectively, a feature unrelated to the dispositive issue. Non-Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2020-006421
Application 15/476,812

5
Yu ¶¶ 2, 8, 25, 26, Fig. 3B. The rejection is premised on the motivation to
maintain the bend in the flex substrate of Yu during module processing.
Non-Final Act. 4, 6, 9; Ans. 5–6. Okazaki discloses the primary purpose of
adhesive layer 13 is to fix the flexible circuit board 93 in the bent position.
Okazaki ¶ 37. The suggested modification to include an adhesive to adhere
Yu’s warpage control devices 330 and 340 together would bond and
permanently hold the portions of the flexible substrate into the bent
configuration shown in Yu Fig. 3B. The Examiner has not identified
evidence that the proposed modification would, in addition to maintaining
the bend of the substrate, also allow the flexibility of the substrate required
to prevent disruption of the electrical connection as required by Yu.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Briefs, we determine
that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not supported by sufficient
facts. “Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is not supported by facts
it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, we reverse obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9–14, and
17–23.
DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 9–
14, 17–23
103 Yu, Kim, Okazaki 1, 3–5, 7, 9–
14, 17–23
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7, 9–
14, 17–23

REVERSED