Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2019

14868073 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/868,073 09/28/2015
26245 7590 03/15/2019
E INK CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
1000 TECHNOLOGY PARK DRIVE
BILLERICA, MA 01821-4165
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaojia Zhang
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.
F-0281CON 9934
EXAMINER
PATEL, VIPIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2019 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):
IP@eink.com
bbean@eink.com
abaronian@eink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOJIA ZHANG
Appeal2018-005234
Application 14/868,073
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 21 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Masuzawa3 in view of Shannon4, adding Liang5 and
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Final Office Action of June 9,
2017 (Final).
2 Appellant is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, E Ink Corporation,
LLC., which is also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 US 2009/0268274 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009.
4 US 2003/0070929 Al, published Apr. 17, 2003.
5 US 2004/0032390 Al, published Feb. 19, 2004.
Appeal2018-005234
Application 14/868,073
Paolini6 to reject claim 22, and adding Machida7 to reject claims 26 and 27.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to an electrophoretic display including an
electrophoretic display fluid sandwiched between two layers. See, e.g.,
claim 21. The electrophoretic display fluid contains three types of particles
dispersed in a solvent or solvent mixture. Two of the types of particles are
pigment particles, each of opposite charge. Id. The third type of particle is a
transparent color particle comprising a transparent polymeric matrix with
dye solubilized therein. Id. It is the transparent color particle at the center
of the dispute in this appeal. We reproduce claim 21 with the most relevant
limitation highlighted:
21. An electrophoretic display comprising:
an electrophoretic display fluid which comprises
transparent color particles, a first type of charged pigment
particles, and a second type of charged pigment particles, all of
which are dispersed in a solvent or solvent mixture, wherein the
first and the second types of charged pigment particles are
oppositely charged and one type has a color darker than the
other type, and the transparent color particles comprise a
transparent polymeric matrix with dye molecules solubilized
therein; and
a first layer on a viewing side and a second layer, and the
electrophoretic display fluid is sandwiched between the first
and the second layers;
wherein,
6 US 2002/0131147 Al, published Sept. 19, 2002.
7 US 2007/0188848 Al, published Aug. 16, 2007.
2
Appeal2018-005234
Application 14/868,073
(a) the color of the first type of charged pigment particles
is displayed when the first type of charged pigment particles is
at or near the first layer,
(b) the color of the second type of charged pigment
particles is displayed when the second type of charged pigment
particles is at or near the first layer, and
( c) the color of the transparent color particles is displayed
when the charged pigment particles are at or near the second
layer.
Appeal Br. 12 ( claims appendix) ( emphasis added).
OPINION
The issue on appeal is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in
the Examiner's finding of a suggestion to use Shannon's transparent color
particles in Masuzawa's device?
Appellant has identified such an error.
Masuzawa teaches an electrophoretic display that has a structure
similar to that of Appellant's display device and operates in much the same
manner. Compare Masuzawa's Figs. la-le, with Appellant's Figs. 1-3.
The difference is that Masuzawa does not suggest using transparent color
particles. This is acknowledged by the Examiner. Final 14. The Examiner
turns to Shannon for a teaching of using transparent color particles. Id.,
citing Shannon's Figure 3 showing particles 32, 34, 36.
The problem is that Shannon selects particles of a different sort for
use in a device that functions differently than Masuzawa's device.
First, Shannon does not use particles of opposite charges in the same
manner as Masuzawa. Shannon uses a combination of transparent colored
3
Appeal2018-005234
Application 14/868,073
particles in a transparent liquid, which are of three particle types ( cyan,
magenta, and yellow), each having a dielectrophoretic frequency
characteristic approximately of the form shown in Shannon's Figure 1, but
with a different transition frequency fo as shown in Shannon's Figure 2 (foe,
foM, foy) and that travel at different speeds. Shannon ,r,r 45, 48, 49.
Second, Shannon does not place the particles between a top electrode
and bottom electrode as does Masuzawa. Shannon's electrodes 30 are in
bottom plate 28. Shannon Fig. 3, ,r,r 52-54.
Third, Shannon does not attract particles to top plate 26. Instead,
electrodes 30 on the bottom plate 28 are driven with alternating voltage,
which generates an electric field as shown by field lines 38 in Figure 3.
Shannon ,r 54. The particles are attracted to either higher strength field
regions 40 near the electrodes 30 or lower strength field region 42 in the
middle (light modulating) area depending on the drive frequency applied.
Shannon ,r,r 57----61.
Lastly, Shannon's way of displaying color is different. Instead of
being reflected by particles attracted to Masuzawa's top electrode, light
moves through the fluid to white reflective coating 29 on bottom plate and
reflects back to create output light 46. Shannon ,r 55. Shannon applies
different drive frequencies to move the cyan, magenta, and yellow particles
into and out of the lower strength region 42, i.e., the main light modulating
area, to block various wavelengths of light. Shannon ,r,r 57----61.
The Examiner has not provided adequate evidence or technical
reasoning to support a finding that Shannon would have suggested to the
ordinary artisan that using the transparent colored particles of differing
4
Appeal2018-005234
Application 14/868,073
transition frequencies are suitable for Masuzawa's device, which attracts
colored particles to the top viewing electrode to display the color.
The Examiner's application of further prior art in further rejections
does not cure the deficiency.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain any of the rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5