Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2021

2020004130 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 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.
15/182,309 06/14/2016 Jeremy C. Franklin P16798USD1 7209
65015 7590 07/15/2021
Treyz Law Group
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy
#103-621
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
SONG, ZHENG B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2021 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 JEREMY C. FRANKLIN,
KEVIN D. GIBBS, AMY QIAN,
and JOHN RAFF
____________

Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 21, 23–25, 28, and 31 of
Application 15/182,309. Final Act. (July 23, 2019). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’309 Application describes an improved display assembly for an
electronic device such as a portable computer. Spec. 1–2. Claim 1 represents
the claims at issue and is reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims
Appendix. The disputed limitation is italicized.
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a display having a display layer;
a light-emitting diode configured to provide light, where
the light-emitting diode comprises a semiconductor device
mounted on a lead frame structure;
a light guide plate configured to receive the light and to
provide the light to the display as back light illumination; and
a plastic display chassis on which a portion of the
display layer is mounted; wherein the plastic display chassis is
molded over at least some of the lead frame structure to form a
package for the light-emitting diode.
Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added).
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 21, 25, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Lee ’454,2
Jung,3 and Wang.4 Final Act. 2.

2 US 2009/0168454 A1, published July 2, 2009.
3 US 2007/0153159 A1, published July 5, 2007.
4 US 2009/0146156 A1, published June 11, 2009.
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
3
2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee ’454, Jung, Wang,
and Lee ’397.5 Final Act. 6.
3. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, and Osawa.6
Final Act. 7.
4. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, and Ueyama.7
Final Act. 8.
III. DISCUSSION
Appellant appeals the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 21, 23–25, 28, and
31. See generally Appeal Br. Claims 1 and 28 are independent; claims 3, 5,
6, 21, 23–25, and 31 depend from claim 1. Id. at 15–21.
A. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 21, 25, 28, and 31 over Lee ’454, Jung, and
Wang
Appellant provides separate arguments for the patentability of
independent claims 1 and 28 and dependent claim 31. Appeal Br. 7–14. We
will address each of these claims separately. Dependent claims 3, 21, and 25
will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1.
1. Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Lee ’454 describes a
plastic display chassis on which a portion of the display layer is mounted.
Answer 3 (citing Lee ’454 ¶ 38, Fig. 2). The Examiner further found that

5 US 2011/0141397 A1, published June 16, 2011.
6 US 5,803,573, issued September 8, 1998.
7 US 2010/0195351 A1, published August 5, 2010.
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
4
Lee ’454 does not describe a semiconductor device mounted on a lead frame
structure or that the plastic display chassis is molded over at least some of
the lead frame structure to form a package for the light-emitting diode. Id.
at 4.
The Examiner found that Jung describes a light source comprising a
light-emitting diode wherein the light-emitting diode comprises a
semiconductor device mounted on the lead frame structure. Id. The
Examiner further found that it would have been obvious to use Jung’s lead
frame-mounted semiconductor as the light-emitting diode in Lee ’454’s
display because this would insure electrical connections for the LED. Id.
The Examiner found that Wang describes a display chassis wherein
the display chassis is molded over at least some of the lead frame structure
for a light-emitting diode. Id. (citing Wang ¶¶ 34, 39, Figs. 3F, 4). The
Examiner further found that it would have been obvious to modify the
plastic display chassis in the combination of Lee ’454 and Jung to cover at
least some of the lead frame structure to form a package for the light-
emitting diode “to provide additional protection by covering the space
between the LEDs and the chassis thereby preventing exposure to foreign
materials while also providing additional heat dissipation for the LEDs
[Wang, 0008].” Id. (bracketed material in original).
First, Appellant argues that none of the references relied upon in the
rejection describe the plastic display chassis as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br.
7–8.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
As the Examiner points out, Appellant is attacking each of the
references individually. See Answer 7–8. The rejection, however, is based
upon the combination of references and relies upon the combination of Lee
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
5
’454 and Wang to describe or suggest the claimed plastic display chassis.
See id. at 3–4. Based upon our review of these references, we agree with the
Examiner that they, in combination, describe or suggest the claimed plastic
display chassis.
Second, Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the Examiner erred by finding that a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been
motivated to combine Lee ’454 and Wang. Appeal Br. 9. According to
Appellant, Lee ’454 and Wang teach two different functions for the plastic
frame—supporting the display layer and protecting the LED. Id. “The
Examiner’s suggestion to use the plastic display chassis of Lee [’454] for
both the first and second functions has no basis in the currently cited art.” Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
To the extent that Appellant is arguing that an obviousness rejection
would only be proper if a single reference described a plastic display chassis
performing both functions, this amounts to attacking the individual
references and not addressing the combination asserted by the Examiner. As
discussed above, such arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate reversible
error. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”). In this case, the
Examiner found that the prior art described both functions and explained
why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references to arrive at an embodiment of the claimed invention. That is all
that the law requires.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s purported motivation to
combine Lee ’454 and Wang—using Lee ’454’s mold frame 410 to cover
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
6
the LEDs—would provide no additional benefit and, therefore, is
insufficient. Appeal Br. 9–10. Indeed, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s
proposed modification would render the LEDs inoperable for their intended
use of providing backlight. Reply Br. 3.
This argument does not persuade us of reversible error.
As the Examiner points out, Lee ’454’s Figure 2 shows a gap between
the plastic display chassis and the LED package. See Answer 10. Thus, the
Examiner’s proposed modification would prevent accumulation of dust or
debris in this space, thereby protecting the LED package. Id. The extension
of the plastic display chassis also would provide additional heat dissipation
for the LED package. Id. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art
would know not to cover the plastic chassis in a manner that would render
the LEDs inoperable. After all, a person having ordinary skill in the art is not
an automaton. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we
also affirm the rejection of claims 3, 21, and 25.
2. Claim 28
For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 28 below.
28. An electronic device, comprising:
a display having a display layer;
a light-emitting diode configured to provide light,
wherein the light-emitting diode comprises a semiconductor
device mounted on a lead frame structure;
a light guide plate configured to receive the light and to
provide the light to the display as back light illumination; and
a plastic display chassis on which a portion of the display
layer is mounted, wherein the plastic display chassis
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
7
encapsulates at least some of the lead frame structure to form a
package for the light-emitting diode.
Appeal Br. 19–20.
Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for reversal of
the rejection of claim 28 as those presented with respect to claim 1.
Compare id. at 11–14, with id. at 7–10. We affirm the rejection of claim 28
for the same reasons we affirmed the rejection of claim 1.
3. Claim 31
For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 31 below.
31. The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the
plastic display chassis is molded over and directly contacts at
least some of the lead frame structure to form the package for
the light-emitting diode.
Appeal Br. 20–21.
Appellant argues that the combination of Lee ’454 and Wang
would result in both a plastic display chassis that supports a
display layer and a separate LED package with packaging.
There are no teachings that would lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to have a plastic display chassis be “molded over and
directly contact at least some of the lead frame structure to form
the package for the light-emitting diode,” as recited in claim 31.
Appeal Br. 10–11.
As Appellant admits, see id. at 10, this argument is similar to
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1. In our view, this argument is
insufficient to persuade us of the existence of reversible error for two
reasons. First, the argument attacks the individual references piecemeal
rather than addressing the combination of references relied upon in the
rejection. Such an argument is insufficient. Second, the argument restricts
the combined teaching of the prior art to the specific examples described in
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
8
Lee ’454 and Wang. As is well established, the content of the prior art is not
so limited. See, e.g., In re Mercier, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165 (CCPA 1975)
(“[A]ll of the relevant teachings of the cited references must be considered
in determining what they fairly teach to one having ordinary skill in the
art.”); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“[A] reference is not
limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.”).
B. Rejection of claims 5 and 6 over Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, and Lee ’397
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1. As discussed above, we have
affirmed the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented any
separate arguments for the patentability of claims 5 and 6, we also affirm the
rejection of these claims.
C. Rejection of claim 23 over Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, and Osawa
Claim 23 depends from claim 1. As discussed above, we have
affirmed the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented any
separate arguments for the patentability of claim 23, we also affirm the
rejection of this claim.
D. Rejection of claim 24 over Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, and Ueyama
Claim 24 depends from claim 1. As discussed above, we have
affirmed the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented any
separate arguments for the patentability of claim 24, we also affirm the
rejection of this claim.
Appeal 2020-004130
Application 15/182,309
9
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 21, 25, 28, 31 103(a) Lee ’454, Jung, Wang 1, 3, 21, 25, 28, 31
5, 6 103(a) Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, Lee ’397 5, 6
23 103(a) Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, Osawa 23
24 103(a) Lee ’454, Jung, Wang, Ueyama 24
Overall Outcome 1, 3, 5, 6, 21, 23–25, 28, 31
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019).

AFFIRMED