Ex Parte LEU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2017

12628785 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2017)

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