Ex Parte Van Pieterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12532454 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/532,454 0912212009
138325 7590
PHILIPS LIGHTING B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
08/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Liesbeth Van Pieterson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2007P00446WOUS 7882
EXAMINER
APENTENG, JESSICA MCMILLAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
jo.cangelosi@philips.com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIESBETH VAN PIETERSON and SIMA ASV ADI
Appeal2015---002883
Application 12/532,454
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and JULIA
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-9, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A display device comprising:
a substrate accommodating at least one light emitting electro-optical
device; and a knitted fabric layer arranged on said substrate to receive
at least part of the light emitted by said at least one light emitting
electro-optical device,
wherein said knitted fabric layer comprises a backside facing said
substrate and defining at least one pre-formed permanent self-
supporting recess, wherein said recess is an intrinsic feature of the
knitted fabric and is formed in the knitted fabric layer before the
knitted fabric layer is arranged on said substrate,
and wherein said knitted fabric layer is arranged such that said at
least one pre-formed permanent recess is located in front of said
at ieast one iight emitting eiectro-opticai device, and a gap
separates said at least one light emitting electro-optical device
from the knitted fabric layer within said at least one pre-formed
permanent self- supporting recess and provides a certain distance
between said at least one light emitting electro-optical device from
the knitted fabric layer so that a light projection of the at least one
light emitting electro-optical device on the knitted fabric layer is
enlarged.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Burrows US 6,551,726 Bl
Deflin et al. US 2006/0207139 Al
(hereafter "Deflin")
2
Apr. 22, 2003
Sept. 21, 2006
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
Hochman et al. US 2007/0182666 Al
(hereafter "Hochman")
Dorsey et al. US 7,374,315 Bl
(hereafter "Dorsey")
Zafiroglu US 7,431,975 B2
THE REJECTIONS
Aug.09,2007
May 20, 2008
Oct. 07, 2008
1. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Hochman.
2. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hochman in view of Zafiroglu.
3. Claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hochman in view of Deflin.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hochman in view of Dorsey.
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hochman in view of Burrows.
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based
upon Appellants' presented arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014).
At issue in this appeal is whether Hochman anticipates the claimed
subject matter, particularly with regard to a knitted fabric layer that defines
3
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
at least one pre-formed permanent self-supporting recess, and the recess is
an intrinsic feature of the knitted fabric, and is formed in the knitted fabric
layer before the knitted fabric layer is arranged on said substrate, and the
knitted fabric layer is arranged such that the at least one pre-formed
permanent recess is located in front of at least one light emitting electro-
optical device, and a gap separates the at least one light emitting electro-
optical device from the knitted fabric. Appellants' Figure 1 (reproduced
below) depicts this claimed structure:
104
'
107
{ ( (
103 100 101
\
104'
\
i
101'
FIG. 1
Figure 1 is a view of the display device according to Appellants'
Specification.
As shown in Figure 1 (above), fabric layer 102 has at least one pre-
formed permanent self-supporting recess 104. The knitted fabric layer 102
is arranged so that the recess 104 is located in front of a light emitting
electro-optical device 101. A gap 108 separates device 101 from the fabric
layer 104.
4
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
The Examiner finds:
Regarding claim 1, Hochman et al. teaches a display device
comprising: a substrate (303B; figure 3B) accommodating at least one
light emitting electro-optical device (323B); and a knitted fabric layer
(305B) arranged on said substrate (303B) to receive at least part of the
light emitted by said at least one light emitting electro-optical device
323B, wherein said knitted fabric layer (305B) comprises a backside
facing said substrate (303B) and defining at least one pre-formed
permanent self-supporting recess (portion of 305B facing light
emitting electro-optical device 325B), wherein said recess is an
intrinsic feature of the knitted fabric (recess 305B of 325B is an
intrinsic feature of the fabric because the design of the display device
requires the recess 305B. Recess 305B is an essential part of the
device of Hochman.) and is formed in the knitted fabric layer (305B)
before the knitted fabric layer is arranged on said substrate (303B) and
wherein said knitted fabric layer (305B) is arranged such that said at
least one pre-formed permanent self-supporting recess (figure 3B,
recess is formed by underside portion of 305B) is located in front of
said at least one light emitting electro-optical device (323B), and a
gap (see figure 3B where gap is formed under substrate 305B and
above electro-optical device 323B) separates said at least one light
emitting electro- optical device (323B) from the knitted fabric layer
(305B) within said at least one pre\- formed self-supporting recess
(recess is formed by underside portion of 305B above electro-optical
device 325B figure 3B) and provides a certain distance between said
at least one light emitting electro-optical device (323B) from the
knitted fabric layer (305B) so that a light projection of the at least one
light emitting electro-optical device (323B) on the knitted fabric layer
(305B) is enlarged.
Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants argue that item 305B shown in Hochman's Fig 3B is not a
"pre-formed permanent self-supporting recess" as claimed. Appeal Br. 6-
5
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
7. Appellants argue that item 305B is a cavity or pocket that forms after
substrate 303A/303B is joined with substrate 305A/305B.
In response, the Examiner states that the aspect of the claim reciting
that the recess is formed in the knitted fabric layer before the knitted fabric
layer is arranged on the substrate is a process limitation of the product claim
and therefore not given patentable weight. Ans. 2-3.
In reply, Appellants argue that the product-by-process position taken
by the Examiner may have some merit with regard to the phrase "formed in
the knitted fabric layer before the knitted fabric layer is arranged on said
substrate." Reply Br. 2. However, Appellants submit that when this phrase
is taken in context (i.e., the claim as a whole is being considered), the feature
of the recess being "an intrinsic feature of the knitted fabric" must be taken
into consideration. Id. Appellants state that thus, as the claim describes
defining a pre-formed "permanent self-supporting recess," the claim in
effect recites a type of fabric that is intrinsically capable of forming such a
recess. Appellants submit that these are features of the fabric itself. Reply
Br. 2-3.
We note that page 6 of Appellants' Specification discloses that the
self-supporting recess can be obtained in several different ways. One way is
by inserting domes as part of the fabric by manipulating the needle path, the
loop density, and stitch density, to form various 3D surfaces, such as domes.
Spec. 6. Another way is by finishing (texturing) whereby various methods of
texturing can produce localized raised parts on the textile layer that will
function as the top layer. Spec. 7. Examples are a variety of embossing
methods (e.g. puckering or plisse in which localized caustic soda induced
shrinkage causes raising of the structure in the areas that have not shrunk).
6
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
Spec. 7. The Specification also discloses that the surface structure may be
obtained by incorporating elastic yam under tension into the fabric, such that
when the tension on the elastic yam is released, the yams contracts, leading
to the desired surface structure. Spec. 7. The Specification defines the term
"self-supporting recesses" as meaning that the recesses are an intrinsic,
essentially permanent feature of the fabric. The recesses are formed in the
fabric before it is arranged on the substrate, either during the manufacture of
the fabric itself, or as a post-fabrication processing step. Spec. 7. It is in this
manner that we interpret the phrase "permanent self-supporting recess" of
the claimed subject matter.
Appellants argue, on pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief, that the
recess (31 lA, 31 lB) of Hochman cannot be considered a self-supporting
recess which is an intrinsic, essentially permanent feature of the fabric.
Appellants submit that Hochman merely teaches attaching two substrates
together to form a cavity wherein a pixel is disposed. Appellants submit
there is no teaching or suggestion that a recess is formed in one substrate (or
"knitted fabric layer" of the claim language) before the substrates are
combined, and there is no teaching or suggestion of a "pre-formed
permanent self-supporting recess" as further recited in claim 1. Appellants
submit that there is no teaching or suggestion that the at least one pre-formed
permanent self-supporting recess is an intrinsic feature of the knitted fabric.
In response, the Examiner states that Hochman discloses a recess
(31 lA, 31 lB) forming a cavity wherein a pixel (325A, 325B) is disposed.
Ans. 3. The Examiner states that the cavity of Hochman is an intrinsic
permanent feature because without the cavity, the device of Hochman would
not operate correctly. The Examiner states that the cavity of Hochman in
7
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
figure 3B and 4 are needed so that the pixel (325B) can be supported within
the knitted fabric. Id. The Examiner states that Hochman discloses in
paragraph [0037] that a flexible material used for the substrates may include
denim, polyester, vinyl, nylon, other plastic material, or any other flexible
material known in the art. The Examiner states that denim is a woven
material and thus a knitted fabric since woven is a synonym for knitted, and
that it is known that denim has recesses formed therein that are intrinsic and
essentially permanent feature of the denim.
In reply, on pages 3--4 of the Reply Brief, Appellants state that the
Examiner has not established that denim meets the requirements of the
claimed subject matter because it has not been established that denim (or any
other teaching of Hochman regarding the nature of the fabric) defines a pre-
formed permanent self-supporting recess, wherein the recess is an intrinsic
feature of the knitted fabric, and wherein the recess provides for a gap that
separates the light em1ttmg electro-optical device from the knitted fabric
layer which provides a certain distance between the light emitting electro-
optical device from the knitted fabric layer, so that a light projection of the
light emitting electro-optical device is enlarged. Reply Br. 4. Assuming,
arguendo, that denim may possess "inherent recesses," Appellants argue
that it has not been established that Hochman employs such denim recesses
to provide a knitted fabric layer with a self-supporting recess, which fabric
layer recess is arranged so as to provide structure corresponding to that
recited in the rejected claims. Reply Br. 4. We agree. The Examiner may
have made a case that some denim may have intrinsic recesses, however,
the Examiner has not established that Hochman describes using denim that
necessarily possesses such recesses and which denim recesses are employed
8
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
and arranged to form recesses/cavities (31 lA, 31 lB) between the substrates
of Hochman and in a manner that satisfies all of the required limitations of
any of the rejected claims. Appellants' claim 1, in its entirety, requires
more than a recess or cavity between substrates, as discussed by Appellants
in the record.
We note that the Examiner states that Figures 3A, 3B and 4 of
Hochman depict a gap above the light emitting electro-optical device (325A,
325B in figures 3A and 3B) and a gap between the substrate (403A) and
fabric (405A), and concludes that a gap, therefore "is implied" by Figures 3
and 4 of Hochman. Ans. 4. The Examiner argues that the device of
Hochman requires a gap for the product to operate correctly. The Examiner
also states that if there were no gap, the light emitting electro-optical devices
would be covered so that light would be blocked from emitting through the
knitted fabric layer. Ans. 4.
However, it is important to appreciate that Appellants' contribution to
the art is for a display device, suitable for wearable applications, whose
optical properties are less influenced by mechanical forces. Spec. 1, 11. 28-
29. Appellants' Specification discloses that the prior art has included a
layer of fabric arranged directly on the light emitting diodes in order to
diffuse the light emitted from the LEDs, however, the light output of such a
device drastically changes when it is subjected to mechanical influence, such
as pressure, bending and stretching forces, and the diffusing fabric layer will
easily be compressed, reducing the diffusing action. Spec. 1, 11. 18-27. The
Specification discloses that such a lighting device is not suited for wearable
applications or the like, where it regularly will be subjected to mechanical
forces. Id. The Specification discloses that, for good diffusion, it is desirable
9
Appeal2015-002883
Application 12/532,454
to have the diffusing material at a certain distance from the light emitting
diodes. Id. In this context, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
not established that the structure of the fabric of Hochman provides for a
pre-formed permanent recess allowing for a gap that separates the light
emitting electro-optical device from the knitted fabric layer and also
provides a certain distance between the light emitting electro-optical device
from the knitted fabric layer so that a light projection of the at least one light
emitting electro-optical device on the knitted fabric layer is enlarged, as
required by Appellants' claims.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. The Examiner does not
rely upon the other applied references of Rejections 25- to cure the stated
deficiencies of Hochman. Final Act. 6-11. We thus also reverse these
rejections.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
10