Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2018

14579873 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/579,873 12/22/2014
58027 7590 09/27/2018
H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HoonsikKIM
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.
P5865USOO 8641
EXAMINER
SWANSON, WALTER H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOONSIK KIM,
DONGWOO SEO, IN SEO KEE,
and TAEHYEOG JUNG
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 20, and
21 of Application 14/579,873 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Final Act.
(Jan. 11, 2017) 2-11. Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., which is also
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a flexible display device
that includes a flexible display panel, a flexible outer member, and a stress
control member disposed between the flexible display panel and the flexible
outer member. Spec. ,r 10. The stress control member is configured to
define neutral planes in the flexible display panel and the flexible outer
member when the flexible display device is bent. Id.
Claims 1 and 8 illustrate the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A flexible display device, comprising:
a flexible display panel;
a flexible outer member disposed on the flexible display
panel; and
a stress control member, disposed between the flexible
display panel and the flexible outer member, for physically
coupling the flexible display panel to the flexible outer member
and defining a first neutral plane and a second neutral plane in
the flexible display panel and the flexible outer member,
respectively, when the flexible display device is bent,
wherein the stress control member comprises a pressure
sensitive adhesive sheet.
8. The flexible display device of claim 1, wherein the stress
control member is configured to have a maximum shear strain
of from about 150% to about 360% at a bent portion when the
flexible display device is bent.
Appeal Br. 16, 17 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) or (2) as anticipated by Bums,2 or in the
alternative, obvious over Bums. Final Act. 2-10.
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bums in view ofWatanabe. 3 Id. at 10-11.
3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bums in view of Kim. 4 Id. at 11.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18,
and 20 as anticipated by and/or obvious over Bums. In support of the
rejection, the Examiner found that Bums' flexible backplane 102 satisfies
the "stress control member" limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. Appellant
argues that Bums' flexible backplane does not teach such limitation. Appeal
Br. 9-10.
2 US 2010/0295812 Al, published Nov. 25, 2010.
3 WO 2013/161868 Al, published Oct 31, 2013 (US 2015/0103268 Al,
published Apr. 16, 2015, cited as English language counterpart).
4 US 2015/0053061 Al, published Feb. 26, 2015.
3
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
Claim 1
Bums teaches a flexible touchscreen display as depicted below.
101
} 102,
102b
10$
Figure 2 "illustrates a device configuration for a resistive touch screen
structure which incorporates a display media 101, laminated over a flexible
backplane 102." Bums ,r 37. Bums further teaches that "[t]he backplane
incorporates a flexible substrate 102b as is shown in FIG. 2 .... The
display media 101 and display backplane 102 are then laminated over a
resistive touch screen 103 by utilising a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA)."
Id.
First, Appellant argues the backplane taught by Bums cannot
"physically couple" members. Appeal Br. 9--10. More specifically,
Appellant asserts that Bums' display "is fabricated using an active matrix
driving arrangement. As such, unlike the Examiner's interpretation, the
backplane 102 cannot physically couple members but rather is an element
for driving a display that requires accurate positioning of elements." Id.
4
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
(internal citation omitted). Appellant does not offer any proposed
construction of "physically couple." Id.
In regard to the physical arrangement of the three layers, Bums
teaches as follows:
The flexible display medium is brought in contact with the
flexible backplane either through direct deposition of a display
active layer ... or through lamination with a display medium
. . . . The display comprising the flexible backplane and the
flexible display medium is laminated on top of a resistive touch
screen sensor.
Bums ,r 25.
The foregoing passages of Bums indicate that the backplane 102
physically combines the display media 101 and resistive touchscreen 103 of
Bums. See also id. ,r 37 and Fig. 2. Absent any further argument or a
proposed narrower claim construction, Appellant has failed to show error in
this regard.
Second, Appellant argues that Bums does not teach "a stress control
member ... defining a first neutral plane and a second neutral plane in the
flexible display panel and the flexible outer member, respectively," as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 10.
Evaluation of the foregoing limitation requires consideration of the
term "neutral plane." When a flexible member is bent so as to be curved,
there is a compressive stress on the interior of the curve and a tensile stress
on the exterior of the curve. See Spec. i"fi"f 11, 84--86. Thus, in Figure 7 A,
5
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
reproduced below, the point marked as SA4 would be subject to tensile
stress and SAI would be subject to compressive stress. Id. ,r 96.
Figure 7 A "is a side view showing a display device including members of
which their stresses are coupled to each other when the display apparatus is
bent." Id. ,r 91.
Intermediate the points of tensile and compressive stress, there is an
imaginary curved plane defined by points where strains are substantially
zero. Id. ,r 93. This is referred to as the "neutral plane." Id. In the figure
above this is marked by a dashed line designated "SNPI ." In Figure 7 A, the
"adhesive member AM-S 1 physically couples the display panel DP-S 1 to the
outer member OSM-Sl" such that "[w]hen the display device DD-SI is
bent, a stress of the display panel DP-S 1 is coupled to a stress of the outer
member OSM-SI by the adhesive member AM-S 1. Thus, one neutral
plane SNPl is formed in the display device DD-SI when the display device
DD-SI is bent." Id. (emphasis added).
If, however, the intermediate adhesive member "decouples" the stress
of a top layer from a lower layer (or vice versa), two neutral planes are
formed. Id. ,r 104. This situation is shown in the figure below.
6
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
• AN? A2
.A4 i A::!/
n('·· ~ C·
,,_,•...;.. ~ , .. .J
'
Afrl A,:.
~p l ~~_;_, t,~, 1 ··
. ' ·::..:.;;.-:: ~~ I
Figure 9A "is a cross-sectional view showing a display device." Id. ,r 107.
In regard to Figure 9, the Specification teaches that
When the display device DD is bent, the stress control member
AM partially decouples a stress of the display panel DP and a
stress of the outer member OSM from each other. Neutral planes
NPl and NP2 are defined in the display panel DP and the outer
member OSM, respectively, when the display device DD is bent.
Id. ,r 108. This latter arrangement is required by the claims at issue.
In finding that Bums teaches the claimed neutral planes, the Examiner
determined that "the stress control member (102) comprises a pressure
sensitive adhesive sheet." Final Act. 3 (citing Bums ,r,r 20 and 37). This is
consistent with claim 1 which requires that "the stress control member
comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims
App.). The Examiner further determined as follows:
Consistent with intrinsic evidence, Bums' stress control
member 102 comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet.
The claimed invention's pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet may
include at least one of a polymer, a cross-linking agent, and a
resin. The polymer may include at least one of acrylic
polymers, silicon-based polymers, and urethane-based
polymers. Bums explicitly teaches that stress control member
102 may be made from a thin layer of polyimide (PI) or more
7
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
preferably, a polymer film such as polyethyleneterephtalate
(PET) or polyethylenenaphtalene (PEN).
Answer 6.
It is reasonable to infer that the pressure sensitive adhesive of Bums
would act in a manner similar to the pressure sensitive adhesive of the
claims. Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's reasoning in this
regard.
Appellant states that "[c]laims 2-5, 8 and 9 stand together with claim
1 based on dependency." Appeal Br. 10. As we have not found Appellant's
arguments regarding claim 1 to be persuasive, we determine that Appellant
has not shown error with regard to its dependent claims on the foregoing
basis.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the stress
control member is configured to have a maximum shear strain of from about
150% to about 360% at a bent portion when the flexible display device is
bent." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determined that Bums teaches such limitation. In
making such determination, the Examiner stated that "[t]he Office realizes
that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by
prior art reference Bums" but that "the claimed effects and physical
properties would implicitly be achieved by [a] device with all of the claimed
structure." Final Act. 6. The Examiner further determined that to traverse
such determination "evidence would need to be presented to support
applicants' position." Id.
"[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of
the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of
8
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Such a burden-shifting framework is fair because of "the PTO's inability to
manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Here, the Examiner showed a sound basis for believing Bums'
pressure sensitive adhesive would be similar to the pressure sensitive
adhesive of the claims. Thus, the burden was properly shifted to the
applicant to show that the shear strain of Bums differs from the claimed
range. Appellant does not present factual evidence in response. Rather,
Appellant presents legal argument suggesting that the claimed range requires
high viscosity and high elasticity not taught by Bums. Answer 5. This is
insufficient to rebut the prima facie case.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
determination in this regard.
Claims 11-14, 16-18 and 20
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 17 as anticipated by, or obvious
over, Bums. Final Act. 6-7. Appellant argues that such rejection is in error
for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br.
11-13. Further, Appellant states that "[c]laims 12-14 and 16 stand together
with claim 11 based on dependency," id. at 12, and"[ c ]laims 18 and 20
stand together with claim 17 based on dependency," id. As we have not
found Appellant's arguments regarding claim 1 persuasive, we determine
that Appellant has not shown error with regard to the rejection of the
foregoing claims.
9
Appeal 2018-001753
Application 14/579,873
Rejections 2 and 3. The Examiner rejected claim 6 as obvious over
Bums in view of Watanabe. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner further
rejected claim 21 as obvious over Bums in view of Kim. Id. at 11.
Appellant argues that such rejections are in error for the same reasons set
forth above with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13-14. As we have not
found such arguments persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not
shown error with regard to the rejection of claims 6 and 21.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, and by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Answer, we determine that the rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 9,
11-14, 16-18, 20, and 21 are affirmed.
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
10