Ex Parte Kwak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2014

11751294 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NOH-MIN KWAK, TAE-MIN KANG, JAE-HO LEE,
JIN-SOO KIM, DAE-WOO LEE, and SEONG-TAEK LEE1
____________

Appeal 2013-000349
Application 11/751,294
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–6 and 19. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a laser irradiation device used
to fabricate objects such as organic light emitting displays. Spec. ¶ 2.

1According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is Samsung
Mobile Display Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2013-000349
Application 11/751,294

2
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below from the Claim
Appendix (App. Br. 7):
1. A laser irradiation device to form a deposition pattern
in a transfer layer, the laser irradiation device
comprising:
a light source to produce a laser beam;
a collimation lens to form a collimated beam from the
laser beam, disposed under the light source; and
a micro lens array comprising a set of asymmetrical
micro lenses, disposed under the collimation lens, to
introduce in the collimated beam a pattern
corresponding to the deposition pattern in the transfer
layer, by dividing the collimated beam into sub-
beams,
wherein the micro lenses are each asymmetrical with
respect to an optical axis along which the collimated
beam is propagated there through.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of
claims 1–6 and 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jorritsma2
in view of Moshrefzadeh3 and Vӧlkel.4

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Jorritsma teaches a laser irradiation device
comprising most of the limitations of claim 1, but “does not explicitly teach
the micro lenses are each asymmetrical with respect to an optical axis.”
Final Act. 6. The Examiner further finds that Moshrefzadeh discloses a

2 Jorritsma et al., US 2007/0013889 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007.
3 Moshrefzadeh et al., US 6,317,263 B1, issued Nov. 13, 2001.
4 Vӧlkel et al., Microlens Lithography and Smart Masks, 35
MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 513-516 (1997).
Appeal 2013-000349
Application 11/751,294

3
micro lens array wherein the lenses are asymmetrical with respect to an
optical axis.5 According to the Examiner, Moshrefzadeh teaches using
asymmetrical lenses “for the purpose of controlling the focal length and
divergence angle of sub-beams” (id. at 7 (citing Moshrefzadeh Figs. 8A–8C;
col. 7, ll. 53–67), and therefore, “clearly compliments [sic, complements] the
desired benefit of Jorritsma” (id. at 2). As a result, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of invention to incorporate the asymmetrical micro lenses from
Moshrefzadeh into the laser irradiation device of Jorritsma.
Appellants argue that using the asymmetrical lenses of Moshrefzadeh
in the Jorritsma apparatus would not have “complemented” the Jorritsma
apparatus. App. Br. 4–5. Specifically, Appellants contend that Jorritsma is
directed to focusing different components of a beam of light at different
focal lengths along the Z-axis, and that “[p]roviding the asymmetrical lenses
of Moshrefzadeh in the lithographic apparatus of Jorritsma, as the Examiner
suggests, would cause the parallel patterned beam 3 of Jorritsma to be
dispersed in an asymmetric manner, rather than in the Z-axis direction.” Id.
at 4. Appellants thus contend that combining the lenses of Moshrefzadeh
with Jorritsma would render the Jorritsma apparatus unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Id. at 4–5.
Appellants also argue that Moshrefzadeh is non-analogous art because
Moshrefzadeh relates to a light dispersion screen for adjusting a viewing
angle of a rear projection display, whereas the claimed invention relates to a

5 Unless otherwise specified, in this Opinion we use the term “asymmetrical
lens” to mean a lens that is asymmetrical with respect to the optical axis (i.e.,
Z-axis).
Appeal 2013-000349
Application 11/751,294

4
laser irradiation device. Id. at 5–6. Appellants thus contend that
“Moshrefzadeh is neither in the field of [Appellants’] endeavor nor pertinent
to the problem addressed by [Appellants].” Id. at 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner points out that Moshrefzadeh “explicitly
shows the parallel beams of light (812, 814, 822, 824) being focused along
the Z-axis direction, which corresponds to the optical axis (810).” Ans. 3.
In view of this, the Examiner concludes that asymmetrical micro lenses used
in the Jorritsma apparatus would continue to focus light in the Z-axis
direction, and, therefore, would not render the apparatus unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner also concludes that Moshrefzadeh constitutes
analogous art. According to the Examiner, Moshrefzadeh is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which Appellants were concerned because it is
“explicitly drawn to a micro lens array being asymmetrical with respect to
an optical axis for the express purpose of controlling the divergence of
parallel beams along the Z-axis (optical axis)” and can be used with laser
irradiation devices. Id. at 5–6.
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that the prior art
references, in combination, disclose each element of the claimed subject
matter. Final Act. 6–7. Nor do Appellants contest the Examiner’s finding
that, as taught by Moshrefzadeh, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
know that having an array of asymmetrical lenses allows for control of
divergence angles and focal lengths. Id. at 2, 5, 7; Ans. 4. As Jorritsma is
Appeal 2013-000349
Application 11/751,294

5
similarly concerned with control over focal lengths and divergence angles,
we agree with the Examiner that Moshrefzadeh’s teachings regarding
asymmetrical lenses “clearly compliments [sic] the desired benefit of
Jorritsma.” Final Act. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Moshrefzadeh
would render Jorritsma unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appellants’
position is based on the argument that the asymmetrical lenses of
Moshrefzadeh would result in the parallel patterned beam of Jorritsma being
dispersed in an asymmetric manner, rather than in the Z-axis direction. The
Examiner, however, has directed us to persuasive evidence to the contrary in
Moshrefzadeh, which expressly discloses that the lenses of Moshrefzadeh
would focus light along the Z-axis direction. See Ans. at 3–4 (citing
Moshrefzadeh col. 7, ll. 52–67 and col. 8, ll. 1–15).
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Moshrefzadeh is
non-analogous art. Both the claimed invention and the Moshrefzadeh
reference relate to the optical properties of lenses, and the lenses have the
same structure and function within their respective applications. See In re
Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370, 1372 (CCPA 1973).
Further, the Examiner’s conclusion is reinforced by the guidelines set
forth by the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007). As correctly noted by the Examiner, an obviousness analysis must
take into consideration the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Final Act. 2 (citing KSR). In the present appeal, we note that
the disputed difference between the claimed invention and the prior art
Jorritsma apparatus is the type of micro lens used. The asserted claims
substitute a lens that is asymmetrical about the optical axis for the one that is
Appeal 2013-000349
Application 11/751,294

6
symmetrical about the optical axis employed by Jorritsma. As illustrated by
Moshrefzadeh, however, the use of asymmetrical lenses was well known in
the art. See Final Act. 2, 7; Ans. 4. Additionally, as the Examiner points
out, Moshrefzadeh provides formulae that can be used to estimate the
divergence angles of light rays entering an asymmetrical lens. Ans. 4. The
asserted claims thus appear to involve the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 416; Agrizap Inc., v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1.
Appellants offer no persuasive arguments regarding the patentability
of claims 2–6 and 19. See App. Br. 6. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of
these claims for the same reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1–6
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

lp