Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13473211 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/473,211 05/16/2012
66547 7590 09/01/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joo-Hoon LEE
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.
678-4344 7083
EXAMINER
LUI, DONNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOO-HOON LEE
Appeal2015-005884
Application 13/473,211
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-005884
Application 13/473,211
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates "to a display in which an
Electromagnetic Resonance (EMR) digitizer is integrated." Spec. 1, 11. 13-
14.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. An integrated digitizer display comprising:
a Thin Film Transistor (TFT) substrate, on a first surface
of which a TFT and an organic light emitting layer are formed;
and
a sensor electrode formed on a second surface of the TFT
substrate, the second surface being opposite to the first surface.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2011/0090171 Al; Apr. 21, 2011). Final
Act. 3-5. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Gandhi et al. (US 2009/0085894 Al; Apr. 2,
2009). Final Act. 5---6.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Jambor et al. (US 2006/0246379 Al; Nov. 2,
2006). Final Act. 6-7.
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed
July, 1, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed December 12, 2014
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed March 24, 2015 ("Ans.");
and (4) the Reply Brief filed May 26, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-005884
Application 13/473,211
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON CHEN
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Chen.
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Chen, the Examiner points to
Chen's Figure lOB reproduced below.
FIG. 10.B
Chen's Figure lOB Depicting a Cross-Sectional View of an Integrated
Substrate with Interlaced Electromagnetic Sensor Loops
The Examiner finds that Chen's TFT 108 disposed on insulating layer 112
satisfies the limitation of a TFT formed on the first surface of a TFT
substrate. In other words, the Examiner finds that insulating layer 112 is a
substrate. According to the Examiner,
Although Chen teaches item 102 of fig. 1 OB to function as
a substrate and item 112 to function as an insulation layer, item
112 can also be used as a substrate, since a substrate is a
substance onto which a layer of another substance is
applied/ deposited.
3
Appeal2015-005884
Application 13/473,211
Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds that
Chen teaches in paragraph 38 that item 102 is a glass substrate
(glass comprises silicon dioxide; silicon oxide may refer to
silicon dioxide) or other substrate which light can pass through
and various kinds of substrates can be adopted to be the substrate
according to the requirement. Items 112, 113, 115, and 106 of
fig. lOb are all made of the same material. Paragraph 43 of Chen
indicates that item 112 is made of an insulating material such as
silicon oxide or other transparent insulating material, therefore
item 112 is both a substrate and an insulator.
Ans. 3.
On the other hand, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in
interpreting Chen's insulating layer 112 as a substrate, and Chen, instead,
discloses both electromagnetic sensor loops and the TFT being disposed
above the substrate 102. App. Br. 2-3. Appellant explains that
[i]n the semiconductor field, it is well known that the insulator
is used for blocking carrier movement to an electrode. Also, it
is well know[ n] by those skilled in the art that the substrate is
used for supporting other layers above the substrate. The roles
of a substrate and an insulator are totally different, and an
insulator cannot be equivalent to a substrate.
App. Br. 3; see also App. Br. 3 ("Additionally, an insulation layer is
commonly known by those skilled in the art to be disposed between layers of
conductors, and would not be interpreted by those skilled in the art as a
substrate.").
We are not persuaded of error. Namely, even if a skilled artisan
would generally understand each of an insulating layer and substrate to
provide different functions, Appellant's argument lacks any persuasive
argument or evidence to suggest that an insulating layer cannot also be a
4
Appeal2015-005884
Application 13/473,211
substrate. Neither the claims nor Specification define the term substrate, nor
do either suggest that an insulating layer is precluded from being a substrate.
We generally understand a substrate as "the supporting material on or
in which the parts of an integrated circuit are attached or made." 2 Chen
expressly identifies that "thin film transistors 108 [(including gate lines 109
and source lines 110)] are formed on the second insulation layer 112." Chen
i-f 66. A skilled artisan, then, would consider Chen's insulation layer 112 to
support Chen's TFTs 108. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's interpretation of Chen's insulating layer 112 as a substrate.
Appellant also contends that "[ s ]ince the TFT is recited as being
formed on a first surface of the TFT substrate, the TFT substrate cannot be
interpreted to also comprise the TFT." Reply Br. 2. As discussed above
though, the Examiner relies on insulating layer 112 as the recited substrate
and TFTs 108 are formed on insulating layer 112. See, e.g., Figure lOB,
Chen i-f 66. Appellant's argument is, therefore, unpersuasive.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claim 1, as well as claims 2, 5, and 6, not argued with particularity, are
anticipated by Chen.
2 GOLDEN GATE GRAPHICS, GLOSSARY OF PRINTED CIRCUIT DESIGN AND
MANUFACTURING, http://www.goldengategraphics.com/pcgloss.
htm#substrate (last visited August 29, 2016); see also DICTIONARY.COM,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/substrate?s=t (last visited August 29,
2016) (defining substrate as "a supporting material on which a circuit is
formed or fabricated."); WEBSTER'S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY (1995)
(defining substrate as substratum which is defined as "the material upon
which another material is coated or fabricated").
5
Appeal2015-005884
Application 13/473,211
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 4, and 7
Appellant does not separately argue patentability for dependent
claims 3, 4, and 7 and, instead, relies on the arguments presented for claim 1.
See App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 4. For the reasons discussed above, we find
these arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, claims 3, 4, and 7 are
unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7.
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
6