Ex Parte GATES et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2019

15359923 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/359,923 11/23/2016
26245 7590 05/15/2019
E INK CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
1000 TECHNOLOGY PARK DRIVE
BILLERICA, MA 01821-4165
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Holly G. GATES
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.
H-429DIVCON 5388
EXAMINER
MA,CALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2019 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):
IP@eink.com
bbean@eink.com
abaronian@eink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOLLY G. GATES, ROBERT W. ZEHNER, and
JONATHAN D. ALBERT 1
Appeal2018-008417
Application 15/359,923
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-6, all the pending claims in the
present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants name E Ink Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2018-008417
Application 15/359,923
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention generally relates to an encapsulating cover sheet
secured to a flexible substrate that encapsulates display units. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A flexible large area electro-optic display system
compnsmg:
a large area flexible substrate;
a plurality of flexible electro-optic display units attached
as tiles to the large area flexible substrate, wherein the flexible
electro-optic display units each comprise a front transparent
electrode and back pixel electrodes; and
a flexible encapsulating cover sheet secured to the
flexible substrate, wherein the flexible encapsulating cover
sheet covers the plurality of flexible electro-optic display units
and protects the plurality of flexible electro-optic display units
from mechanical damage.
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1---6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US 6,274,508 B 1, iss. Aug. 14, 2001 ),
Matthies et al. (US 6,897,855 B 1, iss. May 24, 2005), and Albert et al. (US
6,825,829 Bl, iss. Nov. 30, 2004). Final Act. 2.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal2018-008417
Application 15/359,923
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the cited references, specifically Albert, fail to
teach or suggest a "flexible protective cover sheet covering tiled flexible
displays."2 App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Initially, Appellants contend
"Albert does not show or suggest an encapsulating cover sheet." Id. at 12
( emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellants contend, "[ w ]hile Albert
teaches to bond a display to a substrate, e.g., with a binder, there is no
suggestion in Fig. 10, or the description thereof, to include a cover sheet
over the display(s)." Id. at 13. Appellants also argue "the Office
misinterpreted 'encapsulated electrophoretic display' to mean an
encapsulating cover sheet" and that Albert's "encapsulated" term actually
refers to "how the electrophoretic medium is contained ( to prevent settling
of the particles)." Id. (citing Albert 2:48---61).
Appellants' arguments contending "Albert does not show or suggest
an encapsulating cover sheet" are inapposite. See id. at 12 ( emphasis
omitted). The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Matthies
teaches or suggests an encapsulating cover sheet. See id.; Final Act. 3
("Matthies teaches ... an encapsulating cover sheet secured to the flexible
substrate, wherein the encapsulating cover sheet protects the plurality of
electro-optic display units from mechanical damage.") (citing Matthies Figs.
1-5, col. 5-6, Fig. 13, col. 20, lines 24--40). The Examiner relies on Albert
for the "flexible" portion of the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 4. Thus,
2 Appellants paraphrase the claim, which recites in pertinent part, "a
plurality of flexible electro-optic display units attached as tiles to the large
area flexible substrate ... ; and a flexible encapsulating cover sheet secured
to the flexible substrate, wherein the flexible encapsulating cover sheet
covers the plurality of flexible electro-optic display units .... " App. Br. 15.
3
Appeal2018-008417
Application 15/359,923
Appellants' arguments attacking Jacobsen, Matthies, and Albert in isolation
do not persuasively rebut the underlying factual findings made by the
Examiner, which are based upon the combined teachings and suggestions of
the cited references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the "flexible" portion of the disputed limitation,
Appellants assert Albert's "binders such as PVCs, urethanes and silicon"
refer to "adhesive binders, i.e., glues, and not a flexible cover layer." App.
Br. 13. However, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that
Albert discloses displays that are ''flexible enough to bend with wind."
Ans. 3 (quoting Albert 19:28). The Examiner also finds, and Appellants do
not dispute, that Albert discloses "the display media is printed on a
substrate and then covered with a layer of plastic or glass." Id. ( quoting
Albert 18:30-32). As a result, the Examiner finds "that Albert discloses an
electrophoretic display[] having a covering material which encapsulates the
modular display sub units into an integrated larger area display that is
overall also flexible." Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious "to make use of a flexible covering material as known and taught by
Albert in place of the relatively more rigid, glass type covering material of
Matthies ... in order to maintain the intended objective of a flexible display
set out by Jacobsen." Id. at 4.
We agree with the Examiner. In particular, we are persuaded that
Albert's disclosure of a display covered with plastic while being flexible
enough to bend with wind teaches or suggests the claimed "flexible"
encapsulated cover sheet in combination with Jacobsen and Matthies.
4
Appeal2018-008417
Application 15/359,923
Accordingly, Appellants' contention that Albert's "binders such as PVCs,
urethanes and silicon" do not refer to "a flexible cover layer" does not
address all the Examiner's findings and is therefore unpersuasive.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. App. Br. 14. We
therefore also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-6. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-6.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5