Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2021

2019006849 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021)

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.
15/001,595 01/20/2016 Seung-Yeon Cho 8071-884T 5422
22150 7590 03/19/2021
F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
BOCAR, DONNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2021 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):
garramone@chauiplaw.com
mail@chauiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNG-YEON CHO
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12, 14–20, 23, and 24, all of the pending claims. Non-
Final Act. 2. Claims 1–11, 13, 21, and 22 are canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as the real party-in-interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “accurate detection of whether or not cracks
have been formed in . . . a display device.” Spec. ¶ 5.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 12 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations
at issue emphasized:
12. A display device, comprising:
a substrate including a display area and a peripheral area
neighboring the display area;
a plurality of pixels formed over the substrate in the
display area; and
a plurality of signal lines formed over the substrate and
connected to the pixels, wherein the signal lines include:
a plurality of data lines formed over the substrate,
a first crack sensing line formed in the peripheral
area and connected to a first data line of the plurality of
data lines, and
a second crack sensing line formed in the peripheral
area and connected to a second data line of the plurality of
data lines,
wherein the first crack sensing line and the second crack
sensing line are not connected to each other and the first crack
sensing line is disposed on an opposing side of the display area
from the second crack sensing line,
wherein each of the first and second crack sensing lines
has a substantially square wave pattern.
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Kwak US 2014/0240521 A1 Aug. 28, 2014
Song US 2016/0172428 A1 June 16, 2016
REJECTIONS
After withdrawing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) against
claims 14 and 23 (Ans. 9), the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Basis
Non-Final
Act.
24 112(a) Written Description 3
23, 24 102 Kwak 4
12, 14–20 103 Kwak, Song 5
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kwak and
Song teaches or suggests “each of the first and second crack sensing lines
has a substantially square wave pattern,” as recited in claim 12?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Kwak discloses “each of the
first and second crack sensing lines have a substantially closed loop shape
that is folded back upon itself such that a first half of the first and second
crack sensing lines engages with a second half of the first and second crack
sensing lines, respectively,” as recited in claim 23?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that “the first crack sensing line
is directly connected to the first data line” and “the second crack sensing line
is directly connected to the second data line,” as recited in claim 24, lacked
written description?
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

4
ANALYSIS
§ 103
Claims 12 and 14–20
Claim 12 recites “each of the first and second crack sensing lines has
a substantially square wave pattern.”
The Examiner finds that “Kwak already teaches first and second crack
sensing lines” and “Song is referenced to teach a substantially square wave
pattern.” Ans. 4; see also Non-Final Act. 5–6. For the combination, the
Examiner finds, “it would have been obvious . . . to modify the display
device of Kwak” with the square wave pattern of Song “so as to improve
robustness and reduce strain on the trace such as cracks in the wire.” Non-
Final Act. 6 (citing Song ¶¶ 137–38).
Appellant argues “the conductive line traces of Song are not crack
sensing lines” but rather “interconnections between active elements of the
display device.” Appeal Br. 6. Moreover, according to Appellant, “the
conductive lines of Song are specifically designed to not be cracked, which
would frustrate the purpose of crack sensing lines, which are designed to
more easily sever at the appearance of a crack on the substrate so that the
crack on the substrate may be detected.” Id. at 7. Thus, contrary to Song’s
purpose of crack prevention, “the recited crack sensing lines are shapes
configured so as to maximize chances for substrate cracks to propagate
through the crack sensing lines so that a crack may more assuredly be sensed
by a change in resistance of the crack sensing line that would be caused by
the propagation of a crack.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
The Examiner finds that “‘crack sensing line’ is merely a label,” and
“[t]he claim limitations do not preclude the purpose of the shape” from
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

5
being “to reduce strain” or “to reduce the chance of crack initiation and
propagation.” Ans. 4; see id. at 5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained a reason to modify Kwak’s crack sensing lines with Song’s shape.
“Even if all its limitations could be found in the total set of elements
contained in the prior art references, a claimed invention would not be
obvious without a demonstration of the existence of a motivation to combine
those references at the time of the invention.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v.
Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a patent composed
of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each
of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”; “it can be
important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does”). Here, “the fact that the teachings of Song are
not necessarily incompatible with the teachings of Kwak is not a motivation
to combine these teachings.” Reply Br. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 12 and its dependent claims 14–20.
§ 102
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites “each of the first and second crack sensing lines have
a substantially closed loop shape that is folded back upon itself such that a
first half of the first and second crack sensing lines engages with a second
half of the first and second crack sensing lines, respectively.”
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

6
The Examiner relies on Kwak’s Figure 1 for disclosing this limitation.
Non-Final Act. 5. Kwak’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 is a plan view schematically illustrating an organic light
emitting display panel according to an exemplary embodiment” of Kwak.
Kwak ¶ 31.
The Examiner relies on lines “AL_L” and “AL_R” for teaching the
recited first and second crack sensing lines, but relies on those two lines in
combination with lines 130 for forming the closed loop in claim 23. Non-
Final Act. 5; Ans. 7–8. According to the Examiner, “Figure 1 of Kwak
teaches the auxiliary lines being a first half are folded back upon themselves
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

7
by forming right angles and connecting with the second group lines 130.”
Ans. 7–8.
However, we agree with Appellant that “FIG. 1 of Kwak shows
auxiliary lines AL_L and AL_R that may be said to have a closed loop shape
with line group 130, however, the auxiliary lines do not by themselves have
a closed loop shape.” Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner has not explained
sufficiently whether or why line 130 is part of the claimed “crack sensing
line” when the Examiner previously relied on AL_L or AL_R alone. Non-
Final Act. 5. Further, the Examiner fails to explain sufficiently how a right
angle in Figure 1 of Kwak meets the claimed “folded back upon itself” such
that each half “engages” that other half. Turning once to the right is
different than turning back (e.g., turning around).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 23.
Claim 24
Dependent claim 24 was rejected as anticipated by Kwak. Non-Final
Act. 4. However, claim 24 depends from independent claim 12, which was
rejected as obvious over Kwak and Song. Id. at 5. We agree with Appellant
that an anticipation rejection here is improper because dependent claim 24
includes all of the limitations of independent claim 12, including the
limitations for which the Examiner relied on an obviousness combination of
Kwak with Song. Appeal Br. 13. Moreover, even if considered under
obviousness rather than anticipation, we would reverse an obviousness
rejection of claim 24 due to our reversal of the rejection of its base claim,
independent claim 12.
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

8
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 24.
§ 112
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites “the first crack sensing line is directly connected to
the first data line” and “the second crack sensing line is directly connected to
the second data line.” (Emphases added.)
Figures 7, 9, and 11 of the present application each show a transistor
between the labels for the crack sensing lines (CD1 and CD2) and their
corresponding data lines (DD1 and DD2). Reply Br. 9. The Examiner finds
this intervening transistor means the lines are “not directly” connected.
Ans. 9. Appellant argues the lines are “directly” connected, but its reasoning
differs between the two briefs. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that
“the source and drain of the transistor . . . are directly connected to each
other and so as the source (or gate) of the transistor is the crack sensing line
and the gate (or source) of the transistor is the data line, the crack sensing
line is indeed directly connected to the data line.” Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis
added). However, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues “each data line
extends above and below the DC_GATE transistor.” Reply Br. 9 (emphasis
added).
For written description, “the test for sufficiency is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). However, “the hallmark of written description is
disclosure.” Id.
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

9
Here, Appellant does not direct us to the text of the Specification,
instead relying solely on the Figures. The Specification itself does not
appear to ever use “directly” to describe this connection. However, the
Specification does discuss “directly” in a different context: “[W]hen an
element . . . is referred to as being ‘on’ another element, it can be directly on
the other element or intervening elements may also be present. In contrast,
when an element is referred to as being ‘directly on’ another element, there
are no intervening elements present.” Spec. ¶ 57. Thus, at least in some
contexts, the Specification defines “directly” as having no intervening
elements.
For the connection here, at a high level, the Specification generically
states that “[t]he first crack sensing line CD1 is connected to the first data
line DD1 and the second crack sensing line CD2 is connected to the second
data line DD2.” Spec. ¶ 120 (emphasis added) (discussing Figure 9).
However, the Specification describes this connection as being “through”
connection portions: “The first crack sensing line CD1 is connected to the
first data line DD1 through the first connection portion CP1a and the second
connection portion CP1b.” Id. ¶ 122 (emphasis added).
Although the Federal Circuit has held that “drawings alone may be
sufficient to provide the ‘written description of the invention’ required by
§ 112,” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991),
the question remains whether such a drawing “reasonably conveys to those
skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject
matter as of the filing date.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351; see also Permutit Co.
v. Graver Corp., 284 U.S. 52, 60 (1931) (“Moreover, while drawings may be
referred to for illustration and may be used as an aid in interpreting the
Appeal 2019-006849
Application 15/001,595

10
specification or claim, they are of no avail where there is an entire absence
of description of the alleged invention”). Here, although the Specification
certainly discloses that the crack sensing lines and data lines are connected,
Appellant’s own arguments are inconsistent about where one line ends and
the other begins, and Appellant does not direct us to anything in the
Specification or Figures that reasonably would have conveyed to a person of
ordinary skill that the inventors had possession of or thought they had
invented a direct connection between these particular lines rather than
merely a connection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection
of claim 24.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24 112(a) Written Description 24
23, 24 102 Kwak 23, 24
12, 14–20 103 Kwak, Song 12, 14–20
Overall Outcome 24 12, 14–20, 23
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART