Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

12815673 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/815,673 06/15/2010
23363 7590 09/27/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jung-Min LEE
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.
67767/Sl437 1867
EXAMINER
TUROCY, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNG-MIN LEE and CHOONG-HO LEE1
Appeal2014-007110
Application 12/815,673
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 38--41.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is SAMSUNG
DISPLAY CO., LTD. (App. Br. 1 ).
2 Pending claims 1-37 have been withdrawn from consideration. (Final Act.
1 ).
Appeal2014-007110
Application 12/815,673
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a method of performing
deposition on a substrate. Claim 38 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the principal Brief:
38. A method of performing deposition on a substrate,
the method comprising:
completing a deposition process on the substrate by
depositing a deposition material from a deposition source which
holds the deposition material, after passing the deposition
material through a first nozzle unit comprising a plurality of
first slit units arranged in a first axis direction of the substrate,
and a second nozzle unit comprising a plurality of second slit
units arranged in the first axis direction, wherein the deposition
source and the first and second nozzle units are configured to
move relative to the substrate in a second axis direction
perpendicular to the first axis direction during the deposition
process, and wherein the second nozzle unit defines a pattern of
the deposition material on the substrate;
entering a stand-by mode between the deposition process
and another deposition process;
inserting a deposition blade into a space between the first
and second nozzle units by moving the deposition source and
the first and second nozzle units along the second axis
direction, to block the deposition material passing through the
first nozzle from passing through the second nozzle unit during
the stand-by mode; and
removing the deposition blade from the space by moving
the first and second nozzle units along the second axis
direction, to allow the deposition material to pass through the
second nozzle unit during the another deposition process.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 38--41 over (I) the combination of Yoneda (US
2004/0115338 Al, June 17, 2004), Grantham et al. (US 2004/0086639 Al,
2
Appeal2014-007110
Application 12/815,673
May 6, 2004) ("Grantham") and Sakata et al. (US 2004/0216673 Al, Nov. 4,
2004) ("Sakata"); and (II) the combination of Yoneda, Grantham, Sakata,
and Kim (US 2006/0090705 Al, May 4, 2006). 3
OPINION4
The dispositive issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Yoneda
and Grantham would have suggested a method for deposition wherein the
deposition source and the first and second nozzle units are configured to
move relative to the substrate in a second axis direction perpendicular to the
first axis direction during the deposition process, and wherein the second
nozzle unit defines a pattern of the deposition material on the substrate as
required by independent claim 3 8?5
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not establish
that the combination of Yoneda and Grantham would have suggested a
method for deposition wherein the deposition source and the first and second
nozzle units are configured to move relative to the substrate in a second axis
direction perpendicular to the first axis direction during the deposition
3 The Examiner's decision to provisionally reject claims 38 41, and 42 based
on U.S. Application No. 12/849,092 is moot, in light of that application's
abandonment on November 24, 2014. (Final Act. 9-10).
4 We limit our discussion to independent claim 38.
5 The Sakata and Kim references were cited by the Examiner to address
limitations not included in our dispositive issue.
3
Appeal2014-007110
Application 12/815,673
process, and wherein the second nozzle unit defines a pattern of the
deposition material on the substrate as required by independent claim 38.6
The Examiner found Yoneda teaches a deposition process for a
substrate comprising depositing a deposition material from a deposition
source, passing the deposition material through a first nozzle unit comprising
a plurality of first slit units arranged in a first axis direction, and a second
nozzle unit comprising a plurality of second slit units also first axis
direction. (Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner found the deposition source and
the first and second nozzle units move relative to the substrate in a
perpendicular direction to the first axis during the deposition process. (Id. at
5). The Examiner recognized that Yoneda differed from the claimed
invention in that a mask was attached to the substrate and therefore failed to
disclose moving a second nozzle to define a pattern of the deposition
material. (Id.) To address this difference the Examiner cited Grantham for
describing SLEM devices that can pattern a substrate without attaching a
mask to a substrate. (Id.) The Examiner determined the collective prior art
would have suggested modifying "Yoneda to use a mask associated with the
evaporating sources as taught by Grantham to reap the benefits associated
with detaching the mask from the substrate surface." (Id.)
Appellants argue that neither Yoneda nor Grantham, alone or in
combination, discloses or suggests the features of the claimed invention.
(App. Br. 4--5). Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to properly
explain how Yoneda' s stationary mask attached to the substrate would have
been modified in light of the teachings of Grantham. Appellants argue the
6 The statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the September 19, 2013
Final Office Action.
4
Appeal2014-007110
Application 12/815,673
Examiner appears to equate the shadow mask of Grantham with a second
nozzle unit of claim 38. (Id. at 4). Appellants further argue Grantham does
not disclose movement of the mask during the deposition process. (Reply
Br. 2).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
teachings of Yoneda and Grantham. The Examiner appears to be suggesting
that Yoneda' s mask (101) should be attached to and moving in conjunction
with the first and second nozzle assembly. The Examiner does not appear to
appreciate that Yoneda' s mask is situated above the substrate to provide the
pattern from the deposition. (Yoneda i-f 54 ). The removal of Yoneda' s mask
to moving in conjunction with the first and second nozzle assembly would
require additional modification such that the movement provides the pattern
on the substrate. The Examiner has not directed us to evidence that
establishes this type of modification would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
In response to the arguments in Appellants' Appeal Brief, the
Examiner asserts that Yoneda's paragraphs 55-56 describe movement of the
assembly over the entire surface to achieve forming patterns of the organic
EL material layers. (Ans. 10). The Examiner's position is not well taken
because Yoneda' s assembly moves over the entire surface of the mask so
that the organic EL material layers can be deposited on the substrate based
on the patterns of the mask. (Yoneda i-f 54).
Thus, the Examiner has not established that the relied-upon
disclosures are sufficient to support obviousness of the Appellants' claimed
binder. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection
5
Appeal2014-007110
Application 12/815,673
based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts
must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from
the prior art"). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 3 8--41.
DECISION
We reverse the appealed prior art rejections.
REVERSED
6