Ex Parte Toyoshima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2017

12048986 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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.
12/048,986 03/14/2008 Takeshi TOYOSHIMA 323714US3 5945
22850 7590 02/22/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
OSELE, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI TOYOSHIMA, TANEMASA HARADA,
and SHIGERUIWASE
Appeal 2015-002232
Application 12/048,986
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—3, 8, and 10 of Application
12/048,986. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was held on February 13, 3017. We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-002232
Application 12/048,986
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method and apparatus for
exfoliating an adhesive film adhered to a main surface of a liquid crystal
display panel. App. Br. 1—2. The method and apparatus are directed at
reducing the vertical bending force applied to the LCD panel during
exfoliation and reducing the likelihood of damage to the LCD panel. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below with italics indicating the limitation particularly
discussed in this Decision, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An adhesive-film exfoliating device comprising:
an absorption stage for mounting an adhered object having an
adhesive film adhered thereto, the adhered object being
absorbed onto the absorption stage;
a clamper configured to clamp a comer of the adhesive film, the
comer being exfoliated from the adhered object; and
a feeder configured to feed at least one of the absorption stage
and the clamper in a direction parallel to the surface of the
adhered object having the adhesive film adhered thereto, to
exfoliate the adhesive film from the adhered object, while
maintaining a constant distance, perpendicular to the surface of
the adhered object having the adhesive film adhered thereto,
between the clamper and the adhered object throughout
exfoliation of the adhesive film from the adhered object,
wherein
the clamper comprises a clamping unit having a base and a
pinch lever rotatably mounted on the base, the base having an
inclined surface making an acute angle with a top surface of the
absorption stage, wherein
the clamping unit is configured to pinch the comer of the
adhesive film in a manner such that a non-adhesive surface of
the comer of the adhesive film faces to the inclined surface of
the base, wherein
the film is folded back at a tip side of the inclined surface of the
base in a manner such that the non-adhesive surface makes the
2
Appeal 2015-002232
Application 12/048,986
acute angle with the top surface of the absorption stage, and
wherein
the film is clipped by the pinch lever on the inclined surface of
the base.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appx).
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hamamura,2 Watanabe,3
Rautimo,4 and Tsujimoto.5 Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 4—7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hamamura, Watanabe,
Rautimo, Tsujimoto, and Kim.6 Final Act. 5.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Hamamura describes an adhesive film
exfoliating device including every limitation in claim 1 except for a
clamping unit having a pinch lever rotatably mounted on a base having an
inclined surface. Final Act. 2—3, citing Hamamura Figs. 6—7; 10:16—29, 44—
49, 58—61; 11:9-13. The Examiner finds that Watanabe describes a sheet
peeling apparatus having a rotatably mounted pinch lever for gripping and
peeling a laminate sheet from a base sheet, and further shows that an acute
angle with the top surface of the base sheet is effective in gripping and
2 Hamamura US 5,676,789 issued Oct. 14, 1997 (“Hamamura”).
3 Watanabe et al., US 4,956,044 issued Sep. 11, 1990 (“Watanabe”).
4 Rautimo et al., US 3,996,127 issued Dec. 7, 1976 (“Rautimo”).
5 Tsujimoto et al.,US 6,149,758 issued Nov. 21, 2000 (“Tsujimoto”).
6 Kim et al., US 6,227,276 B1 issued May 8, 2001 (“Kim”).
3
Appeal 2015-002232
Application 12/048,986
peeling the sheet. Id. at 3, citing Watanabe Fig 12—15. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to include a clamping unit having a pinch lever and an inclined base in
Hamamura’s device, in view of Watanabe’s teachings. Id. The Examiner
acknowledges, however, that the combination of Hamamura and Watanabe
would not have a clamping unit configured such that the non-adhesive
surface of the film faces the inclined surface of the base. Id.
The Examiner further finds that Tsujimoto shows an adhesive film
exfoliating device wherein the film is folded back such that the non-adhesive
surface makes an acute angle with the top surface of the absorption stage.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to orient the clamper of the combined
references so that the non-adhesive surface of the film would fold back on
the inclined surface of the clamper’s base and make an acute angle with the
absorption stage, because Tsujimoto teaches that pulling the film in a mostly
horizontal direction minimizes stress on the adhered object. Id., citing
Tsujimoto 8:46—53.
Appellants argue that none of the references teaches a film “folded
back at a tip side of the inclined surface of the base ...” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 9. Appellants note that Tsujimoto, the only cited reference that
teaches an adhesive film is folded back during peeling so that its non­
adhesive surface makes an acute angle with the top surface of the absorption
stage, does not show an inclined surface on the base of the clamping unit.
App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue that the only cited reference that shows
a clamping unit having a base with an inclined surface making an acute
angle with a top surface of an absorption stage, Watanabe, shows that the
adhesive surface (rather than the non-adhesive surface) of the film makes an
4
Appeal 2015-002232
Application 12/048,986
acute angle with the absorption stage. Reply Br. 3. Appellants dispute the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to change the
orientation of Watanabe’s inclined surface to achieve the arrangement of
Tsujimoto, because orientation of the inclined surface would have been
important in order to minimize the possibility of tearing the film at the tip of
the inclined surface. Id.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error. While the
Examiner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
“how to arrange the elements of an adhesive film exfoliating device to
achieve the arrangement of Tsujimoto et al. because clamping and peeling
devices are easily reoriented with a high degree of expectance of success”
(Ans. 4—5), the Examiner does not point to any particular evidence of record
to support that finding. Further, the Examiner’s response that a person of
ordinary skill “would not bend the film around a clamp as Appellants allege
would occur if following the teaching of Tsujiumoto et al.” (Ans. 8) is not
persuasive because it does not explain how the references would teach a
person of ordinary skill to avoid the problem identified by Appellants. The
Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The
rejection does not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
prima facie determination that it would have been obvious to modify the
prior art as determined by the Examiner. Accordingly, we cannot sustain
5
Appeal 2015-002232
Application 12/048,986
Rejection 1. Because Rejection 2 is premised on the same deficient
findings, these rejections also are not sustained.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—3, 8, and 10.
REVERSED
6