Ex Parte Chan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12970969 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/970,969 12/17/2010 Lih-Hsiung Chan
31561 7590 06/30/2016
JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE
7 FLOOR-I, NO. 100
ROOSEVELT ROAD, SECTION 2
TAIPEI, 100
TAIWAN
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.
35603-US-PA 7068
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
USA@JCIPGROUP.COM.TW
Belinda@JCIPGROUP.COM.TW
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIH-HSIUNG CHAN, SHINE-KAI TSENG,
CHIN-YUEH LIAO, and HUNG-WEN CHOU1
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify "Au Optronics Corporation" as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "a repairing method of a touch
panel." Spec. i-f 6.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A touch panel, comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of first sensing series, disposed on the substrate and
extended along a first direction, wherein each of the first sensing
series includes a plurality of first sensing pads and a plurality of first
bridge lines, and the first bridge lines serially connect two adjacent
first sensing pads;
a plurality of second sensing series, disposed on the substrate
and extended along a second direction, wherein each of the second
sensing series includes a plurality of second sensing pads and a
plurality of second bridge lines, the second bridge lines serially
connect two adjacent second sensing pads, the first direction is
different from the second direction, and the plurality of first sensing
series and the plurality of second sensing series are electrically
insulated from each other;
a plurality of conductive repairing pattern layers, wherein each
of the conductive repairing pattern layers is overlapped with two
adjacent first sensing pads in the same first sensing series and
overlapped with two adjacent second sensing pads in the same second
sensing series, and the conductive repairing pattern layers are
electrically floating; and
a first dielectric layer, disposed on the substrate to electrically
insulate the plurality of first sensing series, the plurality of second
sensing series and the plurality of conductive repairing pattern layers
from each other.
2
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-20 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over An et al. (US 2011/0227858 Al; Sept. 22, 2011
(filed May 12, 2010)) ("An"); Mamba et al. (US 2009/0213090 Al; Aug. 27,
2009) ("Mamba"); and Wu et al. (US 8,199,120 B2; June 12, 2012 (filed
Dec. 22, 2008)) ("Wu"). Final Act. 2-15.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over An, Mamba, Wu, and Ozaki et al. (US 7,187,423 B2;
Mar. 6, 2007) ("Ozaki"). Final Act. 15-16.
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-13),
the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of An, Mamba, and Wu teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 7-13. We disagree with
Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-16), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in
response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-3). We
2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 2, 2014); Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 30,
2014); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 20, 2013);
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on September 2, 2014).
3
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Mamba teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. In
particular, Appellants assert Mamba's dummy electrode (XD) is between
and not overlapped with or connected to adjacent electrodes (XP, YP), and
therefore the adjacent electrodes (XP, YP) "do not encompass a repairing
function." App. Br. 9 (citing Mamba Figures 7, 8 and i-f 62) (emphasis
omitted). Appellants further assert therefore "dummy electrodes XD and
YD can not [sic] be welded with the X and Y electrodes (XP, YP) by a laser
welding [sic]." Id. (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellants'
contentions are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426(CCPA1981). Specifically,
contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner relies on Mamba (not Wu)
to teach electrodes (XP, YP) (a "conductive pattern layer") and two adjacent
dummy electrodes (XD, YD). Final Act. 3 (citing Mamba Figure 7 and
i-fi-1 61, 77). The Examiner relies upon Wu (not Mamba) to teach repairing
wiring ( 54) (a "conductive repairing pattern") overlapped with sensor wiring
( 60). Final Act. 4 (citing Wu Figs. 10, 11 and col. 5, 11. 15-24 ). The
Examiner further relies upon Wu to teach a laser welding process that
connects the repairing wiring (54) overlapped with the sensor wiring (60).
Id. Thus, it is the combination of Mamba with Wu that teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation and Appellants' attack on the references individually
is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
4
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
Appellants further contend Wu's repairing wiring (54) and sensor
wiring (60) do not overlap. App. Br. 10-11 (citing Wu Abstract; col. 4,
11. 24--28; col. 6, 11. 21-23; and Figure 4). Appellants further assert Wu's
repairing wiring (54) "only intersects the end point of a sensing string
arranged one [sic] direction," and, therefore, Wu does not teach a conductive
repairing pattern layer "for repairing both X and Y directions."
App. Br. 11-12 (citing Wu Figure 4) (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. At the outset, we note
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and,
thus, does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re
Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Claim 1 does not require
"repair[ing] sensing strings in two directions" as argued. App. Br. 12.
Additionally, Appellants' argument is not responsive to the Examiner's
rejection. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Figure 10 of Wu, reproduced
below, teaches or suggests repairing wiring ( 54) overlapped with sensor
wiring (60). Final Act. 4 (citing Wu Figure 10).
5
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
70
/~
60
44
FIG. 10
Figure 10 of Wu illustrates "a cross-sectional view of the repairing
wiring and the sensor wiring according to still another embodiment."
\Vu col. 5, 11. 13-15. "ii .. s shov,rn in FIG. 10 ... , unlike the previous
embodiment, the repairing wiring 54 is located above the sensor wiring 60."
Wu col. 5, 11. 16-18. Furthermore, contrary to Appellants' contention (App.
Br. 9), Wu teaches that "when defect [sic] occurs to the sensor wiring 60
... , a welding process such as a laser welding process or a conductive
material 70 may be configured to electrically connect the repairing wiring 54
to the sensor wiring 60." Wu col. 5, 11. 20-24. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the embodiment from Figure 10 of Wu teaches or suggests
overlapping repairing wiring (54) and sensor wiring (60). See Ans. 3.
Lastly, Appellants contend, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that
"Wu explicitly stated [sic] that the repairing wiring is not overlapped with
the sensor wirings," and therefore "Wu actaully [sic] teaches away from the
6
Appeal2015-001241
Application 12/970,969
claimed invention," and "a perons [sic] having ordinary skill in the art would
have no motivation to modify the disclosure of An, Mamba, and Wu to
arrive at the claimed invention." Reply Br. 5-7 (quoting Wu col. 6, 11. 21-
23) (emphasis omitted).
These arguments are untimely and waived. See Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is
not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.").
Furthermore, the argument is unpersuasive because we disagree with
Appellants' premise. As discussed supra, contrary to Appellants'
contention, we find Wu does teach or suggest overlapping repairing wiring
(54) and sensor wiring (60).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 24 and
25, which recite similar limitations and which were not argued separately.
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-
23, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 7-13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7