Minhyuk Choi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

15257374 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
15/257,374 09/06/2016 Minhyuk Choi P29494US1 1039
65015 7590 09/23/2019
Treyz Law Group
15279 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 250
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
WILSON, ALLAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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):
docket@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MINHYUK CHOI, RUI LIU, CHENG CHEN, CHIN-WEI LIN,
SANG Y. YOUN, SHIH CHANG CHANG, and TSUNG-TING TSAI
Appeal 2019-000107
Application 15/257,374
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, AND
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Apple Inc., appeals from
the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Rappoport.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Rappoport et al., US 2013/0094126 A1, published Apr. 18, 2013.
Appeal 2019-000107
Application 15/257,374
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an electronic device comprising a display
and electrical components. See, e.g., claim 11. The display includes a second
set of pixels and the pixels of the second set include light-transmitting
windows. Id. The electrical components are aligned with the light
transmitting windows. Id. The meaning of “aligned” is at issue in this
appeal.
Claim 11, reproduced below with the word “aligned” highlighted, is
illustrative:
11. An electronic device, comprising:
a display having an array of pixels including first and
second sets of pixels, wherein each pixel has a light-emitting
diode that emits light for that pixel and wherein the pixels of
the second set of pixels include light-transmitting windows; and
electrical components that are each aligned with a
respective one of the light transmitting windows.
Appeal Br. 9 (claims appendix) (emphasis added).
OPINION
We affirm for the reasons provided by the Examiner and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of “align.” Because
“align” encompasses the side-by-side arrangement of Rappoport, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation.
The Examiner finds that Rappoport’s Figure 19 depicts an electronic
device with electronic components 50 that are each aligned with light-
transmitting windows 28. Final 2–3. Appellant contends that Rappoport’s
Appeal 2019-000107
Application 15/257,374
3
interconnects 50 (electronic components) are in-between, and to the side of,
openings 28 (light-transmitting windows) and, thus, electronic components
50 are not, according to Appellant, “aligned” as required by claim 11.
Appeal Br. 3–4.
The question is whether Rappoport’s side-by-side arrangement results
in electrical components 50 “aligned” with windows 28.
“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) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, we first look to the Specification to
determine an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor
describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
‘consistent with the specification. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375,
1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Looking to Appellant’s Specification, we find only one use of the
word “align” in the context of aligning electric components with light-
transmitting windows. It is found in paragraph 8, which reads:
An array of electrical components may be aligned with
the transparent windows. For example, the display may have an
array of light transmitting windows each of which is aligned
with a respective light detector that measures light passing
through that light transmitting window.
Spec. ¶ 8 (emphasis added). Although paragraph 8 states that the electrical
components may be aligned with the transparent windows, it does not
otherwise limit the alignment. The second sentence of the paragraph
describes light detectors that measure light passing through the window, but
Appeal 2019-000107
Application 15/257,374
4
claim 1 is not limited to light detectors and the second sentence merely
discloses an example, which indicates that the arrangement of the first
sentence is not intended to be limited to the example of the second sentence.
Appellant’s Figures 4 and 5 depict examples where electrical
components 84 are light-based components and are located under pixels 22
so that the light-based components can emit or detect light that passes
through windows 76. Spec. ¶¶ 40–42, 45. But the Specification indicates,
again, that these are but examples; electrical components 84 may be a broad
range other types of components, such as audio components, radio-
frequency components, haptic components, etc. Spec. ¶ 41. Again, claim 11
does not limit the electrical components to light-based components. Nor is
claim 1l limited to placing electrical components “under” pixels.
Although we consult the Specification to determine the meaning of
the claim term, we take care to not limit the claim to the specific examples
disclosed in the Specification when the term appears to have a broader
meaning. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”).
The Examiner cites definitions of “align” to support the Examiner’s
determination that “aligned” has a plain meaning that encompasses the side-
by-side arrangement of Rappoport. Ans. 6. In the words of the Examiner:
The word “aligned” is given the plain meaning by dictionaries
such as vocabulary.com which defines “aligned” as “in a
straight line” or collinsdictionary.com defines “align” as “[i]f
you align something, you place it in a certain position in
relation to something else, usually parallel to it.”
Ans. 6.
Appellant does not dispute those definitions. No reply brief was filed.
Appeal 2019-000107
Application 15/257,374
5
Here, we agree with the Examiner that the word “aligned” has a
meaning consistent with the Specification that is broader than the meaning
Appellant seeks. “[T]he name of the game is the claim” and claims that
sweep in the prior art are not patentable. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant is free to amend the claims to obtain the
meaning they seek. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“a patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any
ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the application.”).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
11 § 102(a)(1) 11
FINALITY AND 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