Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2021

2020004022 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
14/897,095 12/09/2015 Kuo-Hua Sung P17770US1 4872
65015 7590 06/23/2021
Treyz Law Group
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy
#103-621
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
PARIHAR, PRADHUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2021 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 KUO-HUA SUNG, DONG CHEOL JUNG,
HAK SOO JEONG, and DO LYUN KIM
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–14, 16, 23, and 24. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application
14/897,095 filed Dec. 9, 2015; the Final Office Action dated Mar. 28, 2019
(“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated Aug. 13, 2019 (“Adv. Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed Nov. 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
dated Mar. 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed May 7, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
2 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 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the invention relates to improved assembly
systems for electronic devices with displays. Spec. 1, ll. 2–4. According to
the applicant, displays in electronic devices are formed from multiple
display layers such as a cover glass layer for protecting the display and
internal components, a touch screen panel for gathering touch input from a
user, and a stack of liquid crystal display structures that generate display
images. Spec. 1, ll. 5–11. The display layers are commonly laminated
together using adhesive. Spec. 1, ll. 11–12. Prior to lamination, the display
substrates are passed through a cleaning system that may include cleaning
rollers that roll across the surface and collect debris from the substrate.
Spec. 1, ll. 13–17.
The claims are directed to a pressure-sensing cleaning roller. See
Appeal Br. 11–13, 15 (Claims Appx.). Claim 10, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
10. A pressure-sensing cleaning roller for removing debris
from a surface of a substrate, comprising:
a cylindrical roller member having opposing internal and
external surfaces, wherein the external surface is a tacky surface
that collects the debris from the surface of the substrate when
the tacky surface is rolled against the surface of the substrate;
and
a pressure sensor wrapped around the external surface of
the cylindrical roller member, wherein the pressure sensor
wraps at least halfway around the external surface and wherein
the pressure sensor is configured to generate pressure signals in
response to contact between the tacky surface and the surface of
the substrate.
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

3
Id. at 11–12.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Name Reference Date
Egoshi et al.
(“Egoshi”)
US 6,237,176 B1 May 29, 2001
Crevasse et al.
(“Crevasse”)
US 2002/0139393 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Schultheis US 2007/0006644 A1 Jan. 11, 2007
Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2007/0095367 A1 May 3, 2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103: (1) claims 10–14, 23, and 24 over Wang, further in view of
Egoshi and Schultheis; and (2) claim 16 over Wang, Egoshi, Schultheis, and
further in view of Crevasse. Final Act. 2–6.

OPINION
Appellant argues claims 10–14, 16, and 23 as a group, making
separate arguments for the patentability of claim 24 (which depends from
claim 10). We select independent claim 10 as representative of the group.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Claims 11–14, 16, and 23 stand or fall
with claim 10. We address claim 24 separately below.

Claim 10
With regard to claim 10, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches most
of the limitations, but Egoshi teaches that an external surface is a tacky
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

4
surface that collects debris, and Schultheis teaches a pressure sensor that
wraps at least halfway around the external surface. Final Act. 3–4. Of
particular relevance to our decision, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to substitute Schultheis’s pressure sensors that wrap at
least halfway around the external brush surface for those of Wang in order to
provide more uniform and accurate reading of pressure without affecting the
cleaning ability of Wang’s roller. Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that Schultheis is directed toward a pressure sensor
on a roller that measures the flatness of material that exits a rolling mill, the
roller having no cleaning functionality. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that
Wang’s roller cannot be modified to include Schultheis’s wrap-around
pressure sensors because “[d]oing so would be detrimental to the cleaning
abilities of Wang’s roller, causing inconsistencies between regions of the
roller and reducing the area of the roller that can be used for cleaning.” Id.
According to Appellant, all arrangements depicted in Schultheis “would
significantly reduce the area of Wang’s roller capable of cleaning the
underlying surface.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner.
Wang discloses a pressure sensor assembly with a plurality of
pressure sensors. Wang ¶ 76. Wang’s FIG. 17 reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

5

FIG. 17 illustrates a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of
Wang’s brush assembly that contains pressure sensing assembly 70 with a
plurality of pressure sensors 71 that are adapted to sense and control the
force applied to cleaning medium 14 as it is pressed against the surface of
the substrate. Id. ¶ 76. The pressure sensing assembly 70 contains two or
more pressure sensors 71, rotating electric feedthrough 73, and controller
101 to sense the signals and adjust the force delivered to the support shaft 42
by the various position actuator assemblies 18 in scrubbing device 1. Id.
Pressure sensors 71 may be distributed across the surface of cleaning
medium 14 so that information can be obtained as to the relative amount of
pressure, or force, applied to the surface of the substrate during processing.
Id.
Schultheis, which was not relied on by the Examiner to teach cleaning
(see Ans. 3), shows that it was known for rollers to include a pressure sensor
wrapped around at least halfway around the roller. See Schultheis ¶ 5; see
also Ans. 4. Schultheis teaches a roller with a pressure sensor that functions
to measure pressure between the roller and the object on which the pressure
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

6
is applied. See generally id. We agree with the Examiner “[t]his is exactly
what the pressure sensor of Wang does.” See Ans. 4.
“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem
addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”
Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293,
1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1448 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (Nies, C.J., concurring). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). “[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not
only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but
when an ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example
because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable,
or more efficient.” Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
We agree with the Examiner’s determination noted above that
modifying Wang’s teaching with that of Schultheis allows for obtaining
more accurate and uniform readings of pressure without affecting the
cleaning ability of Wang’s roller. See Ans. 5. The Examiner’s explanation
of the reasons to combine Wang and Schultheis is sufficient when an
allowance is made for “the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 398 U.S. at 418. “[T]here
exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such
situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses
knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

7
references.” Id. “Evidence of a motivation to combine prior art references
‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to
be solved.’” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The motivation need not be the best
option, but only a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach
away. Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 as obvious.
We sustain the rejection of claims 11–14, 16, and 23 for the same reasons.

Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 10 and recites, “wherein the pressure
sensor is exposed to an exterior of the pressure-sensing cleaning roller.”
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appx.).
Appellant nominally argues separately for patentability of claim 24.
Id. at 7–8. However, Appellant’s argument regarding claim 24 is essentially
the same as that disputing the rejection of claim 10—that Wang’s cleaning
roller cannot be modified by Schultheis’s pressure sensor because doing so
would interfere with Wang’s cleaning ability. See id. at 8; see also Reply
Br. 5. We discuss this issue supra and find no reason to review it again here.
We sustain the rejection of claim 24 as obvious over Wang in view of
Egoshi and Schultheis.
Appeal 2020-004022
Application 14/897,095

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–14, 16, 23, and 24 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–14, 23,
24
103 Wang, Egoshi,
Schultheis
10–14, 23,
24

16 103 Wang, Egoshi,
Schultheis, Crevasse
16
Overall
Outcome
10–14, 16,
23, 24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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) (2018).
AFFIRMED