Ex Parte Feenstra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201613648638 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/648,638 10/10/2012 29150 7590 07/05/2016 LEE & HA YES, PLLC 601 W. RIVERSIDE A VENUE SUITE 1400 SPOKANE, WA 99201 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bokke Johannes FEENSTRA 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. AM2- l 124USC2 3069 EXAMINER SADIO,INSA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2016 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): lhpto@leehayes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BOKKE JOHANNES FEENSTRA and ROBERT ANDREW HAYES Appeal2015-003309 Application 13/648,638 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-13. Claim 14 is withdrawn. App. Br. 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Liquivista B.V. App. Br. 4. Appeal2015-003309 Application 13/648,638 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claims Claim 1 of Appellants' invention is independent and illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A display device comprising: a first support plate; an opposing second support plate; and picture elements disposed between the first and second support plates, each picture element comprising: a wall enclosing first and second regions of a surface of the first support plate, the first and second regions being non- overlapping; a first fluid and a second fluid immiscible with each other disposed within a space between the first support plate, the second support plate, and the wall, the second fluid being electroconductive or polar, and the first fluid being confined within the wall; and a first electrode arranged on the first support plate in the first region only and configured to apply an electro-wetting effect, such that the first fluid forms a continuous film covering the first region and the second region when no voltage is applied to the first electrode, and the first fluid moves toward the second region on application of a voltage to the first electrode. App. Br. 20. The Examiners Rejections Claims 1-13 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-10 of Feenstra et al. (US 8,031, 168 B2; issued Oct. 4, 2011) in view of Sheridon (US 5,956,005; issued Sept. 21, 1999). See Final Act. 9-14. 2 Appeal2015-003309 Application 13/648,638 Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drzaic et al. (US 2004/0263947 Al; published Dec. 30, 2004); and Sheridon. See Final Act. 4--8. Claims 11-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drzaic, Sheridon, and Hayashi et al. (US 2003/0021521 Al; published Jan. 30, 2003). See Final Act. 8-9. ANALYSIS As an initial matter, Appellants do not traverse the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-13 over claims 1- 10 of Feenstra in view of Sheridon. Compare App. Br. 10-17 and Reply Br. 4--6, with Final Act. 9-14. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-13 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting proforma. 2 The Examiner finds Drzaic teaches an "electrophoretic display, in which charged particles are moved in response to an electric field," including "a first support plate," "an opposing second support plate," "picture elements" each "comprising a wall," and "an electrode arranged on the first support plate in the first region only." See Final Act. 3, 5; Drzaic i-f 85, Figs. lA-B, 2A-B, 3I. The Examiner further finds that Sheridon teaches a display medium having two liquids---one of which is immiscible in the other and is polar-that respond to electric fields in order to create a 2 Our decision to sustain the Examiner's double patenting rejection does not prejudice Appellants' ability to overcome the rejection by filing an acceptable terminal disclaimer. See MPEP § 804.02(II) (9th ed., rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015). 3 Appeal2015-003309 Application 13/648,638 display. See Final Act. 6 (citing Sheridon col. 3, 11. 30-40; col. 7, 11. 17-35). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious ... to substitute the known two liquid electrophoretic medium technique of Sheridon in place of the suspended particles of Drzaic in order to achieve the predictable result of an electrophoretic medium which would respond to electric signals by either covering or revealing a portion of a display in order to create an image. Final Act. 6. The Examiner further explains [Drzaic' s] pixel is designed so that either the particles are all located above electrode 30 or are dispersed across the pixel .... [T]hus[,] when combined with the electro wetting effect taught by Sheridon, the voltages applied would be designed to have the same effect on the fluids, allowing them to either disperse across the surface, or be confined to the smaller area denoted by electrode 30. Ans. 4. Appellants contend that combining Drzaic and Sheridon would not operate as the display device of claim 1 if Drzaic' s electrophoretic fluid and charged particles were replaced with Sheridon's first fluid and an immiscible conducting second fluid because those features are incompatible. See App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants argue the combination of Drzaic and Sheridon would not operate as an electro-wetting display device that includes a first electrode arranged on the first support plate in the first region only and configured to apply an electro-wetting effect, such that the first fluid forms a continuous film covering the first region and the second region when no voltage is applied to the first electrode, and the first fluid moves toward the second region on application of a voltage to the first electrode as recited in claim 1. See App. Br 14--15. 4 Appeal2015-003309 Application 13/648,638 Having reviewed Appellants' arguments in light of the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasoning, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred. While we agree with the Examiner that both Drzaic and Sheridon teach display devices that apply electric fields to move display contents in order to modify pixels and thereby create a desired image (see Ans. 2-3), the Examiner does not adequately articulate how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Drzaic and Sheridon to arrive at a display device "configured to apply a electro-wetting effect such that ... the first fluid moves toward the second region on application of a voltage to the first electrode" as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 2--4; Final Act. 3--4, 6. The Examiner does not point to, nor do we find, a portion of Drzaic, Sheridon, or Hayashi that evidences that a person of ordinary skill would substitute Sheridon's fluids for the particles suspended in a solution as taught by Drzaic with predictable results to arrive at the claimed invention given the differences in design of the devices of Sheridon and Drzaic, among other differences. See Ans. 2--4; Final Act. 3--4, 5-7. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-13, which include the same deficiencies. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is summarily affirmed pro forma. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 5 Appeal2015-003309 Application 13/648,638 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 3 7 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F.R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). See 3 7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation