Ex Parte Al-Dahle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12792297 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121792,297 06/02/2010
65015 7590 08/10/2016
Treyz Law Group
870 Market Street, Suite 984
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ahmad Al-Dahle
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.
P9179US1 4453
EXAMINER
DUONG, THO! V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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 AHMAD AL-DAHLE and WEI H. YA0 1
Appeal2015-002160
Application 12/792,297
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-18, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest.
2 In our opinion below, we refer to the Specification filed June 2, 2010
("Spec."), the Final Action mailed February 5, 2014 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed August 5, 2014 ("App. Br."), and the Examiner's Answer
mailed October 2, 2014 ("Ans.").
Appeal2015-002160
Application 12/792,297
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to systems, methods, and display devices
relating to directly bonding electrode pads of a flexible printed circuit to
electrode pads of a glass substrate without an intervening conductive
adhesive layer or an anisotropic conductive film layer, or combination
thereof. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:
a glass substrate having disposed thereon a first plurality of
electrode pads;
a flexible printed circuit having disposed thereon a second
plurality of electrode pads, wherein a joining edge of each
electrode pad of the second plurality of electrode pads is
configured to directly electrically and mechanically bond to a
joining edge of a corresponding electrode pad of the first
plurality of electrode pads without an intervening conductive
adhesive layer or an anisotropic conductive film layer, or a
combination thereof.
App. Br. I (Claim App 'x).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kihm et al. ("Kihm")
Ishii et al. ("Ishii")
Yamazaki et al.
(Yamazaki")
us 4, 779 ,340
us 5,019,944
US 6, 734,941 B2
2
Oct. 25, 1988
May 28, 1991
May 11, 2004
Appeal2015-002160
Application 12/792,297
REJECTIONS
Claims 1and6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ishii. App. Br. 5. Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows: claims 3-5 over Ishii in view of Kihm; claims 15, 16,
20, and 21 over Yamazaki in view of Ishii; and claims 17, 18, 22, and 23
over Yamazaki in view of Ishii and further in view of Kihm. Id.
OPINION
All of the claims require, in somewhat differing language, the element
of claim 1 that "a joining edge of each electrode pad of the second plurality
of electrode pads is configured to directly [ ] mechanically bond to a joining
edge of a corresponding electrode pad of the first plurality of electrode pads
without an intervening conductive adhesive layer or an anisotropic
conductive film layer, or a combination thereof."3 App. Br. (Claims App'x)
i (emphasis added). For each claim, the Examiner finds that this element is
taught by Ishii. Final Act. 2, 7-8, 11-12, and 14. Appellants disagree,
arguing that Ishii does not disclose direct mechanical bonding of one
3 Independent claim 10 requires "compressing the first plurality of electrode
pads directly against the second plurality of electrode pads such that the
joining edge of the first and second plurality of electrode pads are [ ]
mechanically bonded without an intervening conductive adhesive layer or an
anisotropic conductive film layer, or any combination thereof." Independent
claim 15 requires "the second plurality of electrode pads is [ ] mechanically
bonded directly to the joining edge of the first plurality of electrode pads
without an intervening layer of conductive or anisotropic conductive
material, or any combination thereof." Independent claim 21 requires "the
joining edge of the second plurality of electrodes and the first plurality of
electrodes are [] mechanically bonded directly to one another without an
intervening conductive adhesive layer or an anisotropic conductive film
layer, or a combination thereof." App. Br. (Claims App'x) ii-iv.
3
Appeal2015-002160
Application 12/792,297
electrode pad to another. App. Br. 5. Thus, a dispositive issue in this appeal
is the correct interpretation of the disputed claim limitations and the
disclosures of Ishii.
We find that Ishii does not disclose direct mechanical bonding of one
electrode pad to another without an intervening conductive adhesive layer or
an anisotropic conductive film layer, or a combination thereof. We,
therefore, reverse the Examiner's rejections of the claims over § § 102(b) and
103(a).
The Examiner finds that Ishii discloses bonding strength (which the
Examiner equates to the required mechanical bond) at the joining edges can
be improved due to the anchor effect of the metal nodules 3, and this means
that the joining edge of each electrode pad of the second plurality of
electrode pads 2 is configured to directly mechanically bond to a joining
edge of a corresponding electrode pad of the first plurality of electrode pads
31. Ans. 2-3 (citing Ishii col. 5, 11. 35--40). The Examiner also points to
Ishii' s disclosure that, since metal nodules have concavo-convex surfaces in
the embodiment shown in Figure 19, and are formed at the connection
terminal portions, bonding strength can be greatly improved by the conjoint
effect of the anchor effect with the adhesive and the connection can be made
with high reliability. Id. at 14--15 (citing Ishii col. 10, 1. 16-col. 11, 1. 20).
According to Appellants, metal nodules 3 of Ishii are formed on
electrode pads, but are referred to separately from the electrode pads and
form the electrical connection only; metal nodules 3 of Ishii do not directly
mechanically bond the electrode pads. Id. at 5---6 (emphasis in original).
Appellants contend that reading the entire paragraph from which the
Examiner's column 5 citation of Ishii is taken indicates that the purpose of
4
Appeal2015-002160
Application 12/792,297
the metal nodules is to establish an electrical connection, not a mechanical
bond. App. Br. 6 (citing the beginning of the paragraph in Ishii col. 5, 11.
27-32, which reads "[i]n the printed wiring board having a connector
function, electric conduction with a counter-part rigid circuit ... is
established through the metal nodules) (emphasis added). With regard to the
Examiner's citation to columns 10 and 11 of Ishii, Appellants point out that
the anchor effect discussed is between the metal nodules and the adhesive,
not between the metal nodules and electrode pads. Id.
The Examiner points to the disclosure in Ishii that predetermined
portions of a substrate or printed wiring board are coated with an adhesive
before the metal nodules are formed, and the metal nodules then are formed
only at the portions of the substrate or printed wiring board that are not
coated with an adhesive. Ans. 3 (citing Ishii col. 4, 11. 21-38 and 47-54).
The Examiner determines, therefore, that the joining edge of each electrode
pad of the second plurality of electrode pads 2 is also configured to directly
electrically and mechanically bond to a joining edge of a corresponding
electrode pad of the first plurality of electrode pads 31 without an
intervening conductive adhesive layer or anisotropic conductive film layer.
Id. The Examiner further points out that Ishii discloses adhesive packed to a
thickness equal to or lower than the height of the metal nodules 3,
determining that the adhesive is not in contact with the joining edge
comprising the metal nodules. Id. at 6 (citing Ishii col. 4, 11. 25-38 and col.
10, 11. 48-53).
Appellants counter that portions of Ishii indicate a lack of mechanical
bonding. App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants cite to (1) the statements that
"4 is an adhesive packed into the gap region between the conductors 2"
5
Appeal2015-002160
Application 12/792,297
(Ishii col. 10, 11. 10-11) and "the adhesive sheet is sandwiched in between
the connection terminal portions of both the substrates (id. at col. 11, 11. 4--
6); (2) Figure 7 of Ishii, which Appellants say does not show electrodes 2
and 31 (and metal nodules on them) in contact with each other; and (3) claim
1 of Ishii which requires nodule portions and connection portions to be fixed
by an adhesive provided therebetween (id. at col. 19, 11. 23-35).
On the record before us, we find that Appellants hold the better
position. Ishii fails to disclose a direct mechanical bond between electrode
pads of a first and second plurality of electrode pads and the claims of the
application exclude the presence of any adhesive between corresponding
electrode pads of a first and second plurality of electrode pads as shown, for
example, in Figure 17 of Ishii.
The Examiner's§ 102(b) rejection is reversed, as Ishii does not
disclose each element of independent claims 1 or 10, and therefore, also
does not anticipate dependent claims 6-9 or 11-14.
The Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of the other contested claims
(claims 3-5 over Ishii in view ofKihm, claims 15, 16, 20, and 21 over
Yamazaki in view of Ishii, and claims 17, 18, 22, and 23 over Yamazaki in
view of Ishii and Kihm) are also reversed, as neither Yamazaki nor Kihm
correct the deficiency in Ishii.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-18, and
20-23 is reversed.
REVERSED
6