Ex Parte Erlat et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 201312642501 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/642,501 12/18/2009 Ahmet Gun Erlat 236086-1 (GELC:0029)MAN 2656 62204 7590 12/31/2013 GE Licensing ATTN: Brandon, K1-2A62A 1 Research Circle Niskayuna, NY 12309 EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AHMET GUN ERLAT, GEORGE THEODORE DALAKOS, and BRIAN JOSEPH SCHERER __________ Appeal 2012-008144 Application 12/642,501 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 14-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is directed to methods of sealing structures in electronic devices (Spec. para. [001]). Claim 14 is illustrative: Appeal 2012-008144 Application 12/642,501 2 14. A method of forming an edge protection coating over an electronic device, the method comprising: depositing substantially organic materials, such that an organic region having an edge width between approximately 50 micrometers and approximately 3 millimeters is formed over the electronic device; and depositing substantially inorganic materials, such that an inorganic region having an edge width between approximately 50 micrometers and approximately 3 millimeters is formed over the electronic device or over the organic region, wherein the edge protection coating comprises the substantially organic materials and the substantially inorganic materials. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Schaepkens et al. (US 7,015,640 B2, patented Mar. 21, 2006) or Harvey III, et al. (US 5,757,126, patented May 26, 1998). 2. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Schaepkens or Harvey in combination with Burrows et al. (US 6,866,901 B2, patented Mar. 15, 2005). ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Schaepkens or Harvey would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 14 and 18 that includes the steps of depositing substantially organic materials and inorganic materials such that the organic region and inorganic region have edge widths of between approximately 50 micrometers and approximately 3 mm because the edge width of the coating is a matter of design choice? We decide this issue in the affirmative. Appeal 2012-008144 Application 12/642,501 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES The Examiner’s finding and conclusions are located on pages 4-5 and 6-7 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Schaepkens and Harvey teach the steps of the claimed method, except the references are silent regarding the edge width of the coatings (Ans. 4-5). Though Schaepkens and Harvey are silent regarding the edge widths of the coatings, the Examiner determines that the edge width is a matter of design choice of one practicing in the art depending upon the desired “protection” achieved by the layers (Ans. 5). The Examiner explains that the desired thickness of the coating and thus the edge width is a result effective variable that would have been optimized to produce the desired effect (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that Schaepkens supports this position by teaching that the a range of thicknesses for the coatings at column 4, lines 58-65 and the incorporation of even more layers, which would further increase the thickness that would produce the desired protection need at column 9, lines 22-27 (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that Schaepkens and Harvey both show in the figures that the coating is uniformly formed over the device to be coated such that any teaching regarding the thickness of the top of the coating would have been understood to apply to the thickness of the coating on the sides of the device (i.e., the edge width) (Ans. 7). Appellants argue that Schaepkens does not recognize the edge width1 as a result effective variable that would have been optimized (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue that Schaepkens teaches at the column 4 portion cited by the Examiner that the coating thicknesses should be between 10 nm and 1 Appellants define “edge width” as “the length of the edge protection coating extending from the edge of the electronic device” (Spec. para. [006]; See also, Fig. 4B). Appeal 2012-008144 Application 12/642,501 4 10000 nm (i.e., .01 to 10 micrometers), which is outside of ranges recited in the claims (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend Schaepkens’ column 9 disclosure cited by the Examiner refers to layers added to the electro- luminescent layer, not the protective coating (Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue that Schaepkens disclosures regarding the coating thickness are related to the total coating thickness, so even if additional layers may be added as part of Schaepkens’ deposition steps, the total thickness of all the layers would not exceed 10 micrometers at most (Reply Br. 4). The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ argument of nonobviousness. Schaepkens’ column 9 disclosure relied upon by the Examiner as teaching additional layers to the coating thickness is directed to layers added to the electro-luminescent (EL) layer as argued by Appellants. The Examiner has not explained why such additional layers in the EL layer would add to the overall thickness of the protective coating. Neither has the Examiner responded to Appellants’ argument that Schaepkens’ teaching that the coating thickness is between 0.01 to 10 micrometers would have led away from the claimed organic and inorganic coating thickness ranges of 50 micrometers to 3 mm. The Examiner has not adequately explained why in light of Schaepkens’ or Harvey’s teachings one of ordinary skill would have optimized the edge width to a value within the claimed range. Even assuming that edge width is a result effective variable, in light of Schaepkens’ teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized to a coating thickness value outside of the claimed range. Indeed, Schaepkens’ preference is for coating thicknesses as thin as 0.01 to 0.2 micrometers (col.4, ll. 60-61). Appeal 2012-008144 Application 12/642,501 5 With regard to Harvey, the Examiner relies on Harvey’s Figure 5 as showing that the edges of the coating and the top of the coating have similar or the same thickness (Ans. 7). However, Harvey discloses that the drawings are schematic in nature since the thicknesses of the coatings are too thin to permit depiction to scale or to permit convenient proportional scaling (col. 3, ll. 65-67; col. 4, l. 1). Accordingly, it not possible to determine what Harvey’s figures teach regarding the thickness of the various layers or the relationship between the thickness of the top of the layer to thickness of the edge of layer. On this record, the Examiner has not carried the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation