Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2020003218 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
15/840,725 12/13/2017 Scott A. Myers P35454US1 9763
65015 7590 10/02/2020
Treyz Law Group
15279 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 250
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
PATEL, SANJIV D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
docket@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT A. MYERS and RICHARD H. KOCH
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 and 4–20. Appeal Br. 2. The
Examiner has objected to claims 2 and 3 as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but indicated these claims would otherwise be allowable if
rewritten in independent form to include the limitations of the base claim.
Final Act. 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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. 2.
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “electronic devices with displays.” Spec.
¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a housing that bends about a bend axis;
a display in the housing;
a temperature sensor; and
control circuitry configured to heat a portion of the
display that overlaps the bend axis by illuminating pixels in the
portion of the display in response to temperature information
from the temperature sensor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cok US 2006/0152454 A1 July 13, 2006
Kitagawa US 2009/0144934 A1 June 11, 2009
Cassar US 2013/0076658 A1 Mar. 28, 2013
Lee US 2017/0064879 A1 Mar. 2, 2017
Wood US 2018/0164854 A1 June 14, 2018
Shah US 2018/0284856 A1 Oct. 4, 2018

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8–12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Wood and Cok. Final Act. 2–9.
Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wood, Cok, and Kitagawa. Final Act.
9–11.
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
3
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Wood, Cok, and Cassar. Final Act. 11–12.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Wood, Cok, and Shah. Final Act. 12.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wood, Cok, and Lee. Final Act. 13–
14.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Wood, Cok, Lee, and Cassar. Final Act. 14–15.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6, 8–12, 18, and 19 over Wood
and Cok
The Examiner finds Wood and Cok teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 3–5. The Examiner finds Wood teaches most
limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds “[a]lthough
Wood does disclose that its thermal elements 274 and 275 may be ‘any
heating device that enables an increase in temperature in proximity to hinge
270 and 272’ [], Wood does not expressly disclose that the control circuitry
heats the portion by illuminating pixels.” Final Act. 3 (quoting Wood ¶ 33).
The Examiner finds Cok “teach[es] that the control circuitry heats the
portion by illuminating pixels.” Final Act. 3 (Cok ¶ 27); see also Cox ¶ 27
(“OLED devices exhibit a significant amount of self-heating.”). The
Examiner reasons “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of [the] invention to add or substitute the teachings
of Cok into that of Wood [] for the predictable result of generating heat
resulting in an [] increase of temperature.” Final Act. 3 (citing Cox ¶ 27).
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
4
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
“Removing Wood’s thermal elements 274 and 275 and using OLED
pixels to heat the display would render Wood’s device inoperable for its
intended purpose, as Wood teaches that thermal elements 274 and 275 are
needed despite the presence of the OLED display.” Appeal Br. 9.
One of ordinary skill would not add an OLED display underneath
Wood’s display, at least because the additional OLED display
would not function as a display to a user, it would obfuscate
Wood’s actual display, and it would not heat Wood’s display
satisfactorily as taught by Wood (because of Wood’s
requirement of non-display heating).
Appeal Br. 9.
“Cok fails to show or suggest selectively activating portions of the
display to produce heat and is instead focused on mitigating the effects of
heat on OLED elements.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Cok ¶ 33).
“Although the Examiner suggests that it would [have been] obvious to
selectively illuminate portions of a display in view of the Wood and Cok
references, applicant respectfully submits that this is a positively claimed
element missing from both references.” Reply Br. 3–4.
We are not persuaded of any reversible error in the Examiner’s
contested findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
5
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The modification proposed by the Examiner is not a bodily
incorporation of Cok’s system into Wood’s.2 Cok’s teaching of OLED
devices exhibiting a significant amount of self-heating is readily-applicable
to Wood’s display because Wood recognizes the need to increase
temperature in the proximity to hinge 270, 272 and Cok teaches a way to
generate heat by illuminating pixels. See Cox ¶ 27, Wood ¶ 33. In short,
using Wood’s pixels to increase temperature in the proximity to hinge 270,
272, in light of Cok’s teachings, would have been a predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult

2 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference …. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The obviousness analysis cannot
be confined by the formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion,
and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of … the explicit
content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402
(2007).
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
6
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Regarding Appellant’s arguments, the proposed combination does not
require removing Wood’s thermal elements. Nor does the proposed
combination require adding an OLED display underneath Wood’s display.
Further, regarding Appellant’s arguments direct to Wood and Cok
individually, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the
references, as explained above. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; see also Final Act.
3, Ans. 3–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Appellant argues
as discussed above in connection with claim 1, neither Wood nor
Cok shows or suggests illuminating pixels to heat a display.
Moreover, none of the cited references show or suggest
illuminating pixels in a region of the display that overlaps a bend
without illuminating pixels in adjacent portions to heat the
display.
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4.
We do not see any error in the Examiner’s contested findings, and
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Wood in Figure 5 depicts “a thermal element (506) that is configured
to apply heat to an area of foldable display 504.” Wood ¶ 55. For the same
reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, when combined with
Cok, using Wood’s pixels in the area to increase temperature in the area
would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
7
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417;
see also Final Act. 4, Ans. 5.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Appellant presents arguments similar to
the arguments presented for claims 1 and 6. See Appeal Br. 11–12, 13–14;
see also Reply Br. 4.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claims 1 and 6, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 18.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12,
which are not separately argued with particularity.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 13–15 over Wood, Cok, and Kitagawa
Claim 13 (emphasis added) further recites
engage the latching mechanism to hold the first and
second housing structures to each other in response to
measuring a temperature with the temperature sensor that is
below a predetermined temperature; and
disengage the latching mechanism to release the first and
second housing portions from each other in response to
measuring a temperature with the temperature sensor that is
above the predetermined temperature.
The Examiner finds Wood, Cok, and Kitagawa teach all limitations of
claim 13. Final Act. 9–10; see also Ans. 5–7. In particular, the Examiner
finds Kitagawa discloses a latching mechanism. See Final Act. 9 (citing
Kitagawa Figs. 3–4, ¶¶ 13, 28–29). The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of [the] invention to add the teachings of
Kitagawa to that of the combination of Wood and Cok for the
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
8
predictable result of making it easy to lift a cover and stop the
cover at a predetermined open/closed position to be held.
Final Act. 10 (citing Kitagawa ¶ 32).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
Kitagawa fails to show or suggest engaging the latch based
[on] when “the temperature information corresponds to a
temperature for the portion of the display that is below a
predetermined temperature” and disengaging the latch when it is
above the predetermined temperature. None of the cited
references show or suggest this feature.
Appeal Br. 13. “Wood fails to show or suggest latching or otherwise
restricting the movement of the display in response to determining that the
temperature is below a predetermined threshold.” Reply Br. 4–5. “Although
Kitagawa discloses an electromagnetic hinge mechanism that can selectively
engage and disengage (Abstract), Kitagawa fails to show or suggest that the
hinge is engaged or disengaged based on a measured temperature.” Reply
Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments persuade us the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13. In short, Wood discloses heating in response to temperature
information. See Wood ¶¶ 33–35. Kitagawa discloses a latching mechanism.
See Kitagawa, Abstract. However, we do not see an adequate explanation
supported by evidence draw from the record that explains why one skilled in
the art would have engaged/disengaged the latching mechanism in response
to temperature information as recited in claim 13. See Reply Br. 4–5.
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that engaging a latching
mechanism when the display in Wood is in the fully opened position, as
suggested by the Examiner on page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer, still does
not engage the latching mechanism in response to temperature information
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
9
as recited in claim 13 because Wood (Wood, Fig. 7, block 704) describes
generating heat in response to strain gauge measured semi-permanent
deformation (Wood, Fig. 7, block 702).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15, which
depend from claim 13.

The Remaining Rejections
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 5, 7, 16, 17,
and 20. See Appeal Br. 6–14; see also Reply Br. 2–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as obvious
over Wood, Cok, and Cassar; the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as obvious
over Wood, Cok, and Shah; the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 as
obvious over Wood, Cok, and Lee; and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20
as obvious over Wood, Cok, Lee, and Cassar.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4–20 is affirmed in
part.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 8–12,
18, 19
103 Wood, Cok 1, 4, 6, 8–12,
18, 19

13–15 103 Wood, Cok,
Kitagawa
13–15
5 103 Wood, Cok, Cassar 5
7 103 Wood, Cok, Shah 7
Appeal 2020-003218
Application 15/840,725
10
16, 17 103 Wood, Cok, Lee 16, 17
20 103 Wood, Cok, Lee,
Cassar
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–12,
16–20
13–15

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 IN PART