LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019002266 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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.
13/856,852 04/04/2013 Sunggon HONG 29272-23325/US 5386
138354 7590 12/30/2020
LG Display/FENWICK
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
BODDIE, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
FWLGDisplayPatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNGGON HONG, SOON KWANG HONG, JAE DO LEE, and
YONGHEE HAN
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 10–14, and 16–20. See
Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LG Display Co., Ltd.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a touch panel and method of manufacturing
the same and display device using the same. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A touch panel comprising:
a substrate;
a first touch electrode on a first side of the substrate, the
first touch electrode comprising a first transparent conductive
layer deposited on the first side of the substrate;
a first electrode pad on the first side of the substrate, the
first electrode pad comprising a first metal layer;
a first connection line on the first side of the substrate, the
first connection line electrically connecting together the first
touch electrode and the first electrode pad, and wherein one end
of the first connection line comprises the first transparent
conductive layer and the first metal layer deposited on the first
transparent conductive layer, and remaining portions of the first
connection line comprise the first metal layer, but do not include
the first transparent conductive layer;
a second touch electrode on a second side of the substrate,
the second side of the substrate opposite the first side of the
substrate, the second touch electrode comprising a second
transparent conductive layer deposited on the second side of the
substrate;
a second electrode pad on the first side of the substrate, the
second electrode pad comprising a second metal layer;
an intermediate pad on the first side of the substrate that
includes a contact electrode, the contact electrode comprising a
protrusion resulting in a step elevation difference of the
intermediate pad relative to the first electrode pad and the second
electrode pad;
a second connection line on the second side of the
substrate, the second connection line electrically connecting the
second touch electrode on the second side of the substrate and
the second electrode pad on the first side of the substrate via the
contact electrode included in the intermediate pad, and wherein
one end of the second connection line comprises the second
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
3
transparent conductive layer and the second metal layer
deposited on the second transparent conductive layer, and
remaining portions of the second connection line comprise the
second metal layer, but do not include the second transparent
conductive layer; and
a third connection line formed on the first side of the
substrate, the third connection line including a first end and a
second end, wherein the first end is electrically connected to the
second connection line via the contact electrode included in the
intermediate pad, and the second end of the third connection line
is electrically connected to the second electrode pad;
wherein the first touch electrode and the second touch
electrode are both electrically connected to a same flexible
printed circuit film that is connected to the first side of the
substrate.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Appalucci US 5,841,350 Nov. 24, 1998
Hotelling US 2008/0309633 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
Kinoshita US 2009/0002338 A1 Jan. 1, 2009
Kuan US 2009/0218677 A1 Sep. 3, 2009
Mccarthy US 2009/0278263 A1 Nov. 12, 2009
Say US 2010/0288632 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Iwase US 7,936,338 B2 May 3, 2011
Wang US 2011/0169783 A1 July 14, 2011
Jun US 2011/0193799 A1 Aug. 11, 2011

Printed Circuits Handbook, Third Edition, by Clyde F. Coombs, Jr.,
Copyright 1988, ISBN 0-07-012609-7.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hotelling in view of Coombs, Say,
Appalucci and Wang. Non-Final Act. 3–15.
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
4
Claims 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hotelling in view of Coombs, Say, Appalucci and Wang,
and further in view of Kuan and Kinoshita. Non-Final Act. 16.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hotelling in view of Coombs, Say, Appalucci and Wang, and further in view
of Jun and Iwase. Non-Final Act. 17.
Claims 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hotelling in view of Coombs, Say, Appalucci and Wang,
and further in view of McCarthy. Non-Final Act. 14.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14,
16, 18, 19
103 Hotelling, Coombs,
Say, Appalucci, Wang
12, 13 103 Hotelling, Coombs,
Say, Appalucci, Wang,
Mccarthy
6, 17 103 Hotelling, Coombs,
Say, Appalucci, Wang,
Kuan, Kinoshita
20 103 Hotelling, Coombs,
Say, Appalucci, Wang,
Jun, Iwase

OPINION
To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the Answer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 19 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that the combination of Hotelling, Coombs, Say,
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
5
Appalucci, and Wang does not teach or suggest the limitation of “a first
connection line on the first side of the substrate, . . . wherein one end of the
first connection line comprises the transparent conductive layer and the
metal layer deposited on the transparent conductive layer, and remaining
portions of the first connection line comprise only the metal layer,” as
recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner relied on Wang’s conducting wire
126 shown in Figures A and C (note that the conducting wire 126 is not
labeled in Figure C) to correspond to the claimed “first connection line.”
App. Br. 12. Appellant argues that the Examiner is incorrect because Wang
teaches that “the second electrode region 122 may be connected to an
external circuit board, such as a flexible printed circuit (FPC) 128, by a
conducting wire 126.” Id. (citing para. 30). Appellant argues that in Figures
5A and 5C of Wang, the conducting wire 126 partially overlaps the second
electrode region 122, however, “[t]he conducting wires 124, 126 are a metal
or a transparent conducting material, such as ITO.” Id. Appellant argues
that Figures 5A and 5C of Wang clearly show that the conducting wire 126
is a single layer structure, and thus, Wang explicitly discloses that the
conducting wire 126 (e.g., the alleged first connection line) is a single layer
structure made of either metal or a transparent conducting material
where both ends of the conducting wire 126 have the single layer
structure. Id.
Appellant explains that the conducting wire 126 of Wang is not made
of metal and transparent conducting material; rather it is made of one or the
other, either metal or transparent conducting material. Id. In contrast, claim
1 recites "a first connection line on the first side of the substrate ... wherein
one end of the first connection line comprises the transparent
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
6
conductive layer and the metal layer deposited on the transparent
conductive layer, and remaining portions of the first connection line
comprise only the metal layer." Id. at 12–13.
Appellant then asserts that any motivation to modify Wang's
conducting wire 126 to have a multilayer structure that comprises a portion
of the second electrode regions 122 is “gleaned only from applicant’s
Disclosure” and therefore the examiner's motivation to modify Wang is
based on impermissible hindsight. Id. at 13 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “During examination,
‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citation omitted); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053–54 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner provides a modified Figure 5C illustrated below to
show that Wang teaches a first connection line as claimed. Ans. 5.

Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
7

Wang's modified Figure 5C shows the connection line.
But the Examiner further adds that Wang’s Fig. 5C as presented above
clearly shows a connection line (analogous to “the first connection line” of
claim 1), which is the cross-hatched area pointed to by the arrows in the
modified Figure 5C, wherein one end of the connection line comprises a
transparent conductive layer and a metal layer deposited on the transparent
conductive layer. Id. at 6. The Examiner further finds that the remaining
portions of the connection line (the portion of the connection line toward the
right side, which mates to the FPC which appears as a curvy serpentine
structure in Fig. 5C) comprises only the metal layer but does not include the
transparent conductive layer. Id.
The Examiner provides us with a magnified version of Figure 5C as
indicated below with a boxed explanation stating that the end of the
connection line comprises a transparent conductive layer and a metal layer
deposited on the transparent conductive layer. Ans. 7 (see magnified Figure
5C below).
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
8

The magnified Figure 5C connection line of Wang’s Fig. 5C indicates
the portion of the connection line that comprises a metal layer (cross-hatched
portion) deposited on the transparent conductive layer.
Thus, contrary Appellant’s argument, that the Examiner relied on
Wang’s conducting wire 126 alone shown in Figures A and C (note that the
conducting wire 126 is not labeled in Figure C) to correspond to the claimed
“first connection line,” the Examiner relied on the Wang’s metal conducting
wire 126 and the transparent conductive layer right below one of the wire’s
ends to correspond to the claimed first connection line. See App. Br. 12 and
Ans. 5–6.
In other words Wang teaches one end of the first connection line
comprises the first transparent conductive layer (i.e., transparent conductive
layer 122 portion) and the first metal layer deposited on the first transparent
conductive layer (i.e., layer 126 as indicated in Fig. 5A of Wang or as
labeled in modified 5C as the connection line) which is made of a metal
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
9
layer portion only as taught by Wang (para. 30). The Examiner explains
that Wang’s alternate language of metal or transparent material for the
conductive wire 126 is meant to denote the choices of material that could be
used depending on whether the wire’s location could obscure an image
displayed to the viewer—not that they cannot be used together. See Ans. 7.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Wang’s paragraph 30 teaches
that the connection line of Fig. 5C may consist of either metal or transparent
conducting material such as ITO (Indium Tin Oxide). Id. The Examiner
explains that this indicates to one having ordinary skill in the art that the
choice of metal or transparent conducting material is determined by whether
the connection line is located over the display. Id. According to the
Examiner, if the connection line is located such that it does not obscure an
image displayed to a viewer, then metal is much preferred because
transparency is not needed and the electrical conductivity of metal is
significantly higher than that of ITO and thereby reduces signal
loss/attenuation from resistive losses. Id.
The Examiner further explains that the resistive losses are an
important design consideration in touch screens. Id. However, according to
the Examiner, the connection line or any portions of it that are disposed
above the display should be made of transparent material so the display is
not obscured by opaque material such as pure metal. Id. Appellant does not
dispute that it is well known to make conductive lines transparent as to not
obscure the image. This is consistent with Appellant’s Specification stating
“[s]ince the first touch electrode 110 is positioned in an active area for
displaying an image, the first touch electrode 110 is formed of a transparent
conductive material.” Spec. para. 53.
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
10
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Wang’s connection
line has a layer portion that is only metal and at one end is deposited over a
transparent conductive layer so as to not obscure the image. Wang’s
paragraph 30 merely provides options for the line 126 but where the
connection is made and it is over the transparent layer portion it does not
prevent the portion of the transparent layer from being transparent. In other
words, the first connection line includes the wire 126 that is metal only and
on one end is over a transparent conductive layer 122. There is no ipsissimis
verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element,
i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4–5, 8, 10–11, 14, 16,
and 18–19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claims 6, 12, 13, 17 and 20
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 12, 13, 17 and 20
for the same reasons as above.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 10–14, and 16–20
are Affirmed.
Appeal 2019-002266
Application 13/856,852
11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
10, 11, 14,
16, 18, 19
103 Hotelling,
Coombs, Say,
Appalucci, Wang
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
10, 11, 14,
16, 18, 19

12, 13 103 Hotelling,
Coombs, Say,
Appalucci, Wang,
Mccarthy
12, 13
6, 17 103 Hotelling,
Coombs, Say,
Appalucci, Wang,
Kuan, Kinoshita
6, 17
20 103 Hotelling,
Coombs, Say,
Appalucci, Wang,
Jun, Iwase
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
10–14, 16–
20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED