Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12371364 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/371,364 02/13/2009
73576 7590
APPLE INC - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
08/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cheng Chen
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.
P7367US1
(APPL:Ol04/FLE)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7474
EXAMINER
KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG CHEN, SHIH CHANG CHANG, MING XU,
SHAWN ROBERT GETTEMY, and MINGXIA GU
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to the placement and shape of electrodes used in
liquid crystal displays (see Spec. i-fi-f l, 6-7). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A liquid crystal display (LCD) comprising a plurality of
pixels, each pixel comprising:
an insulating layer;
a first electrode formed along a y-axis of an x-y plane on
a first side of the insulating layer, wherein the first side of the
insulating layer comprises a first surface extending across the x-
y plane at a first depth along a z-axis relative to the x-y plane
and
a second surface extending across the x-y plane at a
second depth along the z-axis,
wherein the first depth is above the second depth, the
electrode comprising two or more finger-like regions, wherein
at least one finger-like region of the two or more finger-like
regions is disposed on top of the second surface of the first side
of the insulating layer, and wherein a first portion of the at least
one finger-like region is disposed below the first depth and
wherein a second portion of the at least one finger-like region is
disposed
above the first depth;
a second electrode formed on a second side of the
insulating layer opposite the first side;
a liquid crystal layer, wherein alignment of a plurality of
liquid crystals within the liquid crystal layer is determined by
operation of the first and the second electrode.
2
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sato us 6,072,554
Lim et al.
Kimura et al.
US 2008/0186440 Al
US 2010/0245749 Al
June 6, 2000
Aug. 7, 2008
Sept. 30, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato and Kimura.
Claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato, Kimura, and Lim.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11
The Examiner finds the combination of Sato and Kimura discloses all
the limitations of claim 1 (Final Act. 1 2--4 ). Appellants contend "Sato fails
to teach or suggest finger-like regions of an electrode disposed at different
depths with respect to an insulating layer, as generally recited in claims 1, 5,
and 8" (App. Br. 13). Appellants further contend
Sato provides no reasoning or suggest[ion] to dispose different
regions of the same electrode (301 or 302) at different depths
along a surface of the insulating layer, such that a first portion
of one of the regions is below a first depth of the surface and a
second portion of the same region is above the first depth, as
generally recited in claims 1 and 8
1 The Final Rejection dated December 18, 2013.
3
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
(id. at 16). Appellants also contend "the Examiner has mischaracterized the
first surface and the second surface ofa first side of the insulating layer, as
generally recited in claims 1 and 8, as two different sides (e.g., top side and
bottom side) of the insulating film" (App. Br. 18).
Claim 1 recites
a first electrode formed ... on a first side of the insulating
layer, wherein the first side of the insulating layer comprises a
first surface ... at a first depth ... and a second surface ... at a
second depth ... , wherein the first depth is above the second
depth, the electrode comprising two or more finger-like regions,
wherein at least one finger-like region ... is disposed on top of
the second surface.
Accordingly, claim 1 requires a single side of an insulating layer to have
surfaces at two different depths, with a region of an electrode disposed on
the surface at the lower depth. Neither Sato's Figure 15A, which the
Examiner explicitly relies upon (see Ans. 2--4), nor Figures 15B-15D, show
this feature. The Examiner asserts that Sato's Figure 15A shows electrodes
301 and 302 at different depths on the surface of insulative film 311 (Ans.
2). However, electrode 301 is clearly disposed underneath insulative film
311, not on a second surface at a second depth on the same side of the
insulative film as the first surface at the first depth on which electrode 302 is
disposed (see Sato, Fig. 15A). Sato's Figure 15B shows a similar
shortcoming. Sato's Figures 15C and 15D show electrode 301 disposed
directly on the substrate 310, and thus also do not show electrode 301
disposed on a second surface at a second depth of the insulative film 311.
Therefore, we find Sato's Figures 15A-15D fail to teach the claim 1 feature
of a finger-like region of an electrode disposed on a second surface at a
second depth of an insulating layer that is below a first surface at a first
4
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
depth of the insulating layer, where the first and second surfaces are on the
same side of the insulating layer.
Claims 5 and 8 include limitations similar to the claim 1 limitations
discussed above. Specifically, claim 5 recites
the insulating layer comprises a surface having a first depth ...
and a second depth at a lower depth ... than the first depth,
wherein the surface comprises at least one recessed region
disposed at the second depth ... , the electrode comprising two
or more slat-like portions such that at least one slate-like
portion is disposed in the at least one recessed region
and claim 8 recites
the second side of the insulating layer comprises a first surface .
. . at a first depth ... and a second surface ... at a second depth
different from the first depth ... , wherein the second electrode
comprises a first region disposed on the first surface at the first
depth and a second region disposed on the second surface at the
second depth.
We find Sato fails to disclose the quoted limitations of claims 5 and 8 for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to the similar limitations of claim
1.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 5, and 8, and dependent claims 2--4,
6, 7, and 9-11 for similar reasons.
Claims 12-20
The Examiner finds the combination of Sato and Kimura discloses all
the limitations of claim 12 (Final Act. 2--4). Appellants contend
Sato and Kimura fail to teach or suggest extensions of an
electrode having a first portion of its lateral side abutting or
touching an insulating layer and a second portion of its lateral
5
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
side not abutting or touching the insulating layer, as generally
recited in claims 12, 16, and 18
(App. Br. 20). Appellants also contend
Sato and Kimura fail to teach or suggest two or more extensions
of an electrode formed at different depths along a z-axis with
respect to the x-y plane of the insulative layer, such that at least
one of the extensions is formed sunken into the primary surface
of the insulative layer along the z-axis, as generally recited in
claims 12, 16, and 18
(Reply Br. 6). "Sato's electrode 301 or 302 is not sunken into, penetrated
into, or formed in a depressed region of the insulative layer 311" (id.).
Claim 12 recites "a second electrode formed on a second side ... of
the insulating layer opposite the first side, the second electrode comprising
three or more extensions, wherein at least two of the extensions are penetrate
into the primary surface of the insulating layer." That is, claim 12 requires
the extensions of the electrode to penetrate into one of two opposing side of
the insulating layer. We disagree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 4--5)
that Sato' s Figure 15C show this feature. Although Figure 15C appears to
show a small amount of insulative film 311 deposited adjacent to each of the
lateral sides of electrode 301, the bottom side of electrode 301 is disposed
directly on the substrate 310. Accordingly, we find electrode 301 is not
formed on, and penetrated into, a second side of the insulative film opposite
a first side of the film, as required by claim 12, because no insulative film
remains below electrode 301 in Sato's Figure 15C to constitute a first or
second side of the film.
Claims 16 and 18 include limitations similar to the claim 12
limitations discussed above. Namely, claim 16 recites "a second electrode
disposed on a second side of the insulating layer opposite the first side,
6
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
wherein the second electrode comprises two or more discontinuous regions .
. . , and wherein the at least one of the two or more discontinuous regions is
sunken into the insulating layer"; and claim 18 recites
a second electrode formed ... parallel to a second side of the
insulator layer opposite the first side ... wherein the second
electrode comprises two or more finger-like extensions such
that at least one of the two or more finger-like extensions is
disposed in the at least one depressed region of the insulating
layer.
We find Sato fails to disclose the quoted limitations of claims 16 and 18 for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to the similar limitations of
claim 12.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 12, 16, and 18, and dependent claims
13-15, 17, 19, and 20 for similar reasons.
Claims 21-23
The Examiner finds the combination of Sato and Kimura discloses all
the limitations of claim 21 (Final Act. 2--4 ). Appellants contend
Sato and Kimura fail to teach or suggest two or more extensions
of an electrode formed at different depths along a z-axis with
respect to the x-y plane of the insulative layer, such that at least
one of the extensions is formed sunken into the primary surface
of the insulative layer along the z-axis, as generally recited in
claim 21
(App. Br. 21).
Claim 21 requires "forming a second electrode ... such that two or
more extensions of the second electrode are formed at different depths."
None of Sato's Figures 15A-15D show an electrode with different
7
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
extensions formed at different depths. Although Sato's Figure 15A, for
example, shows extensions of electrode 301 formed at a different depth than
extensions of electrode 302, all of the extensions of electrode 301 are at the
same depth, and all of the extensions of electrode 302 are at the same depth.
That is, Sato' s figures do not show extensions of the same electrode formed
at different depths. The Examiner finds "Sato discloses a two finger-like
region (Fig. 14, 301 and 302 are finger like) of the same electrode (Fig. 14,
302 and 301 are finger-like extensions [of] the same pixel electrode)" (Ans.
2). However, we disagree with the Examiner's finding because Sato
separately discloses a "first comb-shaped electrode 301" and a "second
comb-shaped electrode 302" (Sato, col. 14, 11. 28--40), and Sato's Figure 14
shows that electrodes 301 and 302 are indeed separate electrodes, not
different extensions of the same electrode.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 21, and dependent claims 22 and 23 for
similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8
Appeal2015-002083
Application 12/3 71,3 64
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are
reversed.
REVERSED
9