Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2017

12953795 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
12/953,795 11/24/2010 Jung-Mok PARK 67804/S1437 4141
23363 7590 02/07/2017
T ewis; Rnra Rnthcrerher Phrisitie T T P
EXAMINER
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 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):
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-MOK PARK, SUNG-KU KANG, and CHOON-HYOP LEE
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,7951
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—16, 18, and 19, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 17, and 20 have been
cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,795
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to a touch screen
panel and an image display device having the same, and more particularly,
to a touch screen panel having a simple structure and an image display
device having the same.” Spec. 12.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A touch screen panel comprising:
a transparent substrate comprising:
a touch active region; and
a touch inactive region disposed at an edge portion
of the touch active region;
sensing patterns formed in the touch active region of the
transparent substrate, the sensing patterns comprising:
first sensing cells connected in a first direction by
first connecting patterns; and
second sensing cells connected in a second direction
by second connecting patterns;
a black matrix formed in the touch inactive region of the
transparent substrate;
a first insulating layer disposed between the first
connecting patterns and the second connecting patterns at
locations where the first connecting patterns cross the second
connecting patterns; and
a second insulating layer formed to cover the black matrix
in the touch inactive region,
wherein the first or second connecting patterns and the
black matrix are formed directly on a same layer,
wherein at least one of the first connecting patterns or the
second connecting patterns are at a same side of the transparent
substrate as the black matrix,
wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating
layer are made of a same material in a same layer,
wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating
layer are formed to be one body on a side of the transparent
2
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,795
substrate having the touch active region and the touch inactive
region.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Nakanish
Kim
Hotelling
Lin
Yamaguchi
Polishchuk
US 2009/0284487 A1
US 2010/0013745 A1
US 2010/0026656 A1
US 2010/0039398 A1
US 7,785,938 B2
US 2012/0044187 A1
Nov. 19, 2009
Jan. 21,2010
Feb. 4, 2010
Feb. 18,2010
Aug. 31,2010
Feb. 23, 2012
(filed Mar. 29, 2009)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8—11, 13—16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polishchuk in view of Lin,
Nakanishi, and Hotelling. Final Act. 3—23.
Claims 3—7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Polishchuk in view of Lin, Nakanishi, Hotelling, and Kim.
Final Act. 23—28.
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Polishchuk in view of Lin, Nakanishi, Hotelling, and
Yamaguchi. Final Act. 29.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
3
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,795
We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the Appeal Brief and deem any such arguments waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself,
entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an
appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue ... the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the
pending claims, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—29), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 28—
30). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by
reference unless otherwise noted.2 * 4However, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Hotelling teaches or
suggests “first or second connecting patterns and the black matrix are
formed directly on a same layer,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 6—8, 10-11.
According to Appellants, “the disclosure in Hotelling of ‘configurations in
which the drive and sense lines are formed on the same side of a single
substrate’ (Hotelling, paragraph [0016]) is not a disclosure of drive and
sense lines being directly on the same side of a substrate.” Br. 7. Appellants
2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellants and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 2, 2015);
the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 27, 2015); and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Feb. 2, 2016) for the respective details.
4
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,795
further argue “‘on’ as used in paragraph [0016] of Hotelling does not appear
to mean ‘directly on’, and Hotelling [therefore] does not appear to disclose
‘the first or second connecting patterns and the black matrix are formed
directly on a same layer’ as claim 1 recites.” Br. 7.
The Examiner finds “Hotelling discloses wherein at least one of the
first connecting patterns or the second connecting patterns are formed
directly on a same side of the transparent substrate as the black matrix.”
Final Act. 8 (citing Hotelling || 0016—18, 27—28, 50; Figs. 2A, 4). In the
Answer, the Examiner expanded on that finding with additional findings and
reasoning:
Hotelling’s 1 [0016] states ‘the drive and sense lines are formed
on the same side of a single substrate.’ Further, | [0028] states
‘mask 108 can be printed on an interior portion of the cover
104 that extends between touch screen display 106 and the
sides of the housing 102. In one embodiment, the mask 108 is
formed from high temperature black polymer. The mask 108 can
serve to cover interconnects extending from sides of the of the
touch sensor panel 226.’ Now, looking at figure 2A, including
lines 228 disposed on substrate 232, and extending mask 108 to
‘cover interconnects extending from sides of the [of the] sic
touch sensor panel 226’ would simply look like if you
compressed cover 104 with drive lines 228 would result in the
mask 108 and drive lines 228 to be on the same layer.
Ans. 28—29.
We are not persuaded of error based on Appellants’ argument because
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief and therefore did not address the new
findings and reasoning relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 28—29) and, thus, do
not adequately address the rejection on appeal. Instead, we agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings.
5
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,795
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Nakanishi teaches
or suggests “first or second connecting patterns and the black matrix are
formed directly on a same layer,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 8—10. More
specifically, Appellants argue Nakanishi “does not appear to disclose first or
second connecting patterns” and that “it does not appear that the touch panel
20 and the decorative sheet 14 are ‘formed directly on a same layer’ as claim
1 recites.” Br. 8—9.
The Examiner finds Polishcuk teaches or suggests “first or second
connecting patterns” (Final Act. 4—5), and Hotelling teaches or suggests
“directly” on (Final Act. 8).
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants argue the references individually
instead of addressing the combined teachings of the references as relied on
by the Examiner, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of independent claims 14, and 16, which are argued on the
same grounds, and dependent claims 3—13, 15, 18, and 19, which are not
separately argued. See Br. 11—12.
6
Appeal 2016-004660
Application 12/953,795
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1, 3—16, 18, and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7