Ex Parte Matthies

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2005

09904269 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte
DENNIS L. MATTHIES
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, CRAWFORD, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 20. These are the
only claims in the application.
The claimed invention is a method for manufacturing displays for electronic
devices (specification page 1). Displays for electronic devices are made from a plurality
of layers. When the layers or sheets are non-flat or warped, making good electrical
connections between them is difficult and contacts can fail (specification page 2). The
present invention corrects this problem by using vacuum chucks to temporarily flatten
the individual sheets while they are processed (specification page 4). Other sheets are
secured to the first sheet while it is held in a flattened configuration.
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
2
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Baker et al. (Baker) US 6,458,005 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
(filed Jul. 19, 1999)
Wu et al. (Wu) US 5,756,147 May 26, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Baker in view of Wu.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (mailed 3/10/04) for an explanation
of the examiner’s rejection and to appellant’s brief (filed 1/26/04) and reply brief (filed
3/22/04) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision, we have carefully reviewed the appellant’s specification
and claims, the applied references and, the arguments of the appellant and the
examiner. As a result of this review we have reached the conclusion that claim 1 would
have been obvious in view of Baker to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. We affirm the rejection of all claims on appeal. Our reasons follow.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising: temporarily flattening a sheet; processing
said sheet; and securing said sheet to a second sheet while continuing to hold said
sheet in a flattened configuration.
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
3
Baker teaches a method whereby an LCD tile and cover panel are combined.
Col. 2, line 60-col. 3, line 19. The two are held in place by vacuum chucks. Col. 2, line
60-col. 3, line 19. In the examiner’s view, it would have been obvious to flatten the
sheets or hold them in a flat configuration during manufacturing to eliminate wrinkles
and defects within the apparatus. Examiner’s answer, pages 5-6. Also, the examiner
argues that when the sheets in Baker are subjected to a vacuum, they are temporarily
flattened to some degree. Examiner’s answer, page 6.
In the appellant’s view, sheets are usually processed unflattened and it would not
be obvious to use a vacuum chuck to flatten the sheets. Reply brief, page 2. Further,
the appellant argues that if a sheet were sufficiently stiff, a vacuum chuck would not
flatten it. Reply brief, page 2. So, Baker’s invention does not flatten the sheet.
We hold that Baker teaches temporarily flattening a sheet. We note that while
Baker does not explicitly teach flattening a sheet for reducing warpage, it does teach
using a vacuum chuck to secure a sheet. Although the sheet may be stiff or thick,
under a vacuum chuck, in our view, it will be flattened to at least some degree. The
appellant has not specified the degree of flatness in claim 1.
In addition, the structure of appellant’s and Baker’s invention is essentially the
same. In both instances, a vacuum chuck holds a sheet in place during manufacture.
The only alleged difference is in the functional language of the appellant’s claims. In
addition to placing the sheet on a vacuum chuck, appellant claims the vacuum chuck
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
1 Since the only alleged distinction between applicants' claims and reference is recited in functional
language, it is incumbent upon applicants, when challenged, to show that device disclosed by reference
does not actually possess such characteristics. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA
1971).
4
flattens the sheet. The appellant has not shown that Baker’s invention does not actually
possess the characteristic of flattening the sheet.1
The second element of claim 1 recites, “processing said sheet.” The examiner
recognizes that Baker does not disclose processing said sheet. Examiner’s answer,
page 4. However, in the examiner’s view, Wu teaches processing the sheet.
Examiner’s answer, page 5. The examiner concludes that the combination of Baker
and Wu would have been obvious because it would result in minimizing warp and
disturbances in the layers of the display. Examiner’s answer, page 5.
The appellant argues that Baker does not teach processing a sheet in a flattened
configuration. Appeal brief, page 5. Appellant also argues that Baker teaches away
from processing the sheet in a flattened configuration. Appeal brief, page 5. Appellant
argues:
Baker simply skips the intermediate steps of processing the
sheet in a flattened configuration and immediately positions
the flattened sheet on the second sheet and secures them
together. Appeal brief, page 5.
In appellant’s specification, one embodiment of “processing said sheet” is
applying light emitting material, row, and column electrodes to the flattened sheet.
Specification, page 8. However, the specification asserts this is only one embodiment
and does not define the term “processing.”
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
5
Claims cannot be read in a vacuum, but must be read in light of the specification
to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
162 U.S.P.Q. 541 (CCPA 1969). However, this is a different thing from reading
limitations of the specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of a claim by
implicitly adding disclosed limitations having no express basis in the claim. Id.
In this case, limiting the scope of the term “processing” to the embodiment
described in the specification, would be reading limitations of the specification into the
claim.
The claim language “processing said sheet” is broad enough to define the step of
applying adhesive on one sheet. Baker, col. 3, lines 8-9.
After the adhesive is applied, the other sheet is lowered and the two sheets are
combined. Baker, col. 3, lines 9-19. In our view, applying an adhesive to a sheet on a
vacuum chuck and then combining the sheet with a second sheet on a vacuum chuck is
“temporarily flattening the sheet” and “processing said sheet.”
The appellant has not argued the third element of claim 1 separately.
Accordingly, we hold that Baker teaches each and every element of claim 1.
Although the rejection is based on Baker in view of Wu, it is permissible to affirm
the rejection in light of Baker alone. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 131 U.S.P.Q. 263 (CCPA
1961).
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
6
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of the examiner as to claim 1.
We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2 to 20 as these claims stand
or fall with claim 1 (brief at page 4).
The rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MEC/jrg
Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
7
TIMOTHY N. TROP
TROP PRUNER & HU, P.C.
STE 100
8554 KATY FWY
HOUSTON, TX 77024-1805