Ex Parte LEU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201712628785 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 12/628,785 12/01/2009 Chyi-Ming LEU T4957-R097 6578 22429 7590 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 05/15/2017 EXAMINER KHAN, TAHSEEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2017 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): docketing @ ipfirm. com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com EAnastasio @ IPFirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHYI-MING LEU, YUEH-CHUAN HUANG, and YUNG LUNG TSENG Appeal 2016-003181 Application 12/628,785 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s February 13, 2015 decision finally rejecting claims 1—3 and 8—13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Industrial Technology Research Institute (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2016-003181 Application 12/628,785 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a flexible display substrate structure (Spec. Tflf 1, 2). Independent claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (emphasis in italics)'. 1. A substrate structure applied in flexible electrical devices, comprising: a carrier; a first material layer overlying the carrier with a first area, wherein the first material layer comprises parylene or cyclic olefin copolymers (COC); a second material layer directly formed on the first material layer with a second area, wherein the second area is larger than or equal to the first area, and the second material layer comprises aluminum oxide', and a flexible substrate overlying the second material layer, the first material layer and the carrier with a third area, and directly contacting the carrier, wherein the third area is larger than the second area and the flexible substrate has a greater adhesion force to the carrier than that of the first material layer to the carrier. (Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.)). DISCUSSION Claims 1—3 and 8—13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leu,2 O’Rourke,3 and further in view of Oh.4 Appellants 2 Leu et al., US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0068483 Al, published Mar. 18, 2010. 3 O’Rourke et al., US Patent Pub. No. 2009/126544 Al, published Oct. 15, 2009. 4 Oh, US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0121415 Al, published May 29, 2008. 2 Appeal 2016-003181 Application 12/628,785 do not offer separate arguments in support of any of the dependent claims (see Appeal Br. 5—10; Reply Br. 4—9). Accordingly, our discussion will focus on Appellants’ arguments in support of claim 1. Dependent claims 2— 3 and 8—13 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Leu teaches the elements of the claimed substrate structure except that Leu does not “explicitly disclose using a layer corresponding to Applicants’ claimed second material layer overlying its release layer (corresponds to claimed first material layer)” (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds, however, that O’Rourke “discloses that its flexible substrate is attached to a carrier with an adhesive layer (corresponds to first material layer) there-between and can also have an insulating layer (corresponds to second material layer) directly over it” (id. at 3, citing O’Rourke 7:11—13). The Examiner finds O’Rourke discloses that this insulation layer can be made of silicon oxide or silicon nitride, but does not disclose that it is made of aluminum oxide (Ans. 3—4, citing O’Rourke 7:4— 7). The Examiner finds, however, that “Oh discloses forming a flexible display device . . . comprising a substrate and an insulation layer . . . [and] that it is known in using insulating layers that can be made of metal oxides, silicon, and aluminum oxide, as well as silicon oxides and silicon nitrides” (Ans. 4, citing Oh Title; Abstract; || 9, 33; claims 3, 4). Therefore, according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan “to modify [Leu’s] flexible substrate assembly . . . by adding [O’Rourke’s] insulating layer (corresponds to claimed second material layer). . . over its release layer (corresponds to claimed first 3 Appeal 2016-003181 Application 12/628,785 material layer); wherein said insulating layer (corresponds to claimed second material layer) can be made of [Oh’s] aluminum oxide . . . (Ans. 4). Appellants make the following principal arguments urging reversal of the Examiner’s rejection: (1) the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that the composition, properties, and purpose of O’Rourke’s adhesive layer are distinct from those of Leu’s release layer 14 (Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 7); (2) the ordinary skilled artisan would have understood that O’Rourke’s purpose to “bond a flexible substrate to a rigid carrier” requires “a high force of adhesion”, whereas Leu “describes the release layer as having a lower force of adhesion” (Appeal Br. 9, citing O’Rourke Abstract; Leu Abstract); (3) the Examiner’s proffered motivation to decrease warpage and bowing via O’Rourke’s adhesive layer would render Leu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (Reply Br. 7; see Appeal Br. 9); (4) Oh does not explicitly state that aluminum oxide is equivalent to silicon oxide (Reply Br. 8) ; and (5) the Examiner did not address Appellants’ argument that the combination of O’Rourke and Oh fails to teach an aluminum oxide layer directly on a cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) layer (id.; see also Appeal Br. 9) . Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Regarding arguments (1)—(3), Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed to the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Leu’s flexible substrate assembly by adding O’Rourke’s insulating layer (i.e., the claimed second material layer), over its release layer (i.e., the claimed first material layer), wherein O’Rourke’s insulating layer can be made of Oh’s aluminum oxide (see Ans. 4, 7). Rather, Appellants’ arguments are directed to whether it was improper for the Examiner to 4 Appeal 2016-003181 Application 12/628,785 combine Leu with O’Rourke when each reference allegedly discloses distinct adhesive layers for different purposes. We note that the Examiner’s proposed modification is not directed to incorporating O’Rourke’s adhesive layer into Leu (see Ans. at 4). Furthermore, [t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants’ arguments fail to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s reasoned determination that the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Leu’s flexible substrate assembly by adding O’Rourke’s insulating layer because O’Rourke teaches “using an insulation layer with the disclosed structure and thickness ... in order to decrease warpage and bowing in its flexible substrate” (Ans. 4). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). With respect to argument (4), Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because “a reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979). As the Examiner found, Oh “indicates a degree of functional equivalence between the use of metal oxides, such as silicon and aluminum oxide for its insulation layer . . .” (Ans. 4; see Oh Title; Abstract; 119, 33; claims 3, 4). We discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious for the ordinary skilled artisan to try functional alternative equivalents of O’Rourke’s silicon oxide, such as 5 Appeal 2016-003181 Application 12/628,785 those suggested by Oh, which include the claimed aluminum oxide material, as well as other metal oxides. Ans. 4; see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). Regarding argument (5), Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s proposed combination is not limited to O’Rourke and Oh. Rather, the Examiner found that Leu discloses a flexible structure that can comprise a release layer (i.e., the claimed first material layer) made of parylene or COC (Ans. 2—3). Appellants’ argument has not shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that it would have been obvious for the ordinary skilled artisan to modify Leu’s flexible substrate assembly by adding O’Rourke’s insulating layer, which can be made of Oh’s aluminum oxide, over Leu’s release layer made of parylene or COC. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection for the reasons set forth above and in the Examiner’s Answer. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—3 and 8—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Leu, O’Rourke, and further in view of Oh. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation