Ex Parte Yin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13628811 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/628,811 09/27/2012
65015 7590 03/26/2018
Treyz Law Group
870 Market Street, Suite 984
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Victor H. Yin
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.
Pl3262US1 7647
EXAMINER
DOBROWOLSKI, AGNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
docket@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR H. YIN, JUN QI, DINESH C. MATHEW,
SHIH-CHANG CHANG, CHENG CHEN, JOHN Z. ZHONG, WEI CHEN,
ADAM T. GARELLI, BRYAN W. POSNER, and
CHRISTIAAN A. LIGHTENBERG 1
Appeal2017---009234
Application 13/628,811
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL Y FRANKLIN, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal2017-009234
Application 13/628,811
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth
below:
A display having an active area surrounded by an inactive border area,
compnsmg:
a polarizer;
a thin-film transistor layer that includes a thin-film-transistor substrate
layer, an array of display pixels on the thin-film-transistor substrate layer, and
a grid of metal data and gate lines that distribute signals to the display pixels,
wherein the thin-film transistor layer further includes a non-reflecting material
that is formed between the grid of metal data and gate lines and the thin-film
transistor substrate layer, wherein the thin-film transistor substrate layer is
interposed between the non-reflecting material and the polarizer, and wherein
the non-reflecting material extends into the inactive border area to form an opaque
border; and
a liquid crystal layer, wherein the thin-film-transistor layer is interposed
between the polarizer and the liquid crystal layer.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Tashiro
Shih
Song
Matsumoto
US 2004/0141117 Al
US 2006/0001823 Al
US 2008/0100565 Al
US 2010/0079698 Al
2
July 22, 2004
Jan. 5,2006
May 1, 2008
Apr. 1, 2010
Appeal2017-009234
Application 13/628,811
In ad a
Gray
US 2010/0253605 Al
US 2011/0210094 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Oct. 7, 2010
Sept. 1, 2011
1. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. §
112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
2. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih.
3. Claims 3-8 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih in further view of Song.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih further in view of Tashiro.
5. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih in further view of Song in view of
Tashiro.
6. Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih and further in view of Gray.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih in view of Gray further in view of Song.
8. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih in view of Matsumoto.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih in view of Matsumoto further in view of
Tashiro.
3
Appeal2017-009234
Application 13/628,811
10. Claims 18-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Shih in view of Matsumoto in view of Tashiro
further in view of Song.
11. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Tashiro in view of Shih.
12. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Inada in view of Tashiro in view of Shih further in view
of Song.
13. Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inada in view of Tashiro in view of Shih further in view of
Matsumoto.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
It is the Examiner's position that there is inadequate written descriptive
support for the claim limitation "an opaque masking layer interposed between the
substrate and the metal gate and data lines in an inactive border region of the
display" recited in claim 22. The Examiner states that Figure 7 of the Specification
shows layer (102) (rather than layer 110) as the opaque masking layer located below
both the substrate 58 and the metal gate and data lines (area 86). Final Act. 2-3.
It is Appellants' position that there is adequate written descriptive support for
this limitation for the reasons expressed on pages 4--5 of the Appeal Brief which we
refer to herein.
On pages 5 and 6 of the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner responds by
stating "the non-reflecting material 110, not an opaque masking layer, is
interposed between the substrate and the metal gate and data lines."
4
Appeal2017-009234
Application 13/628,811
However, as Appellants argue in the Appeal Brief on pages 4--5, the
Specification on page 20, 11. 17-28, describes opaque materials from which layer
110 may be formed, and page 21, lines 7-12 of Appellants' Specification
describes that material 110 may be an inactive region IA to block (i.e., mask)
components from view "as described in connection with opaque masking layer
102 of FIG. 7 ." Appellants maintain that a layer that is opaque and provides
masking is an "opaque masking layer" as recited in claim 22. We agree.
The Examiner also responds that Appellants' Specification includes
reference to opaque masking layer 102. Ans. 5. We agree with Appellants that the
mere fact that the Specification includes reference to opaque masking layer 102,
does not negate the fact that the Specification also includes a written description
of a layer of material 110 that is opaque and provides masking, as explained
above. Reply Br. 3.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1.
Rejections 2-13
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Shih does not provide a teaching to extend
Inada's low reflection layer 3a into an inactive area of Inada's display, and
therefore fails to remedy the admitted deficiencies of Inada. Appeal Br. 5-7.
Appellants' argument is based in part upon the fact that Shih's anti-
reflection layer is not in a suitable location to provide a teaching to modify
Inada's low reflection layer 3a as proposed by the Examiner, and that Shih's anti-
reflection layer is actually an extension of the black matrix material between
Shih's color filter films. Id. These arguments are reiterated on pages 6-7 of the
Reply Brief.
5
Appeal2017-009234
Application 13/628,811
On page 7 of the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner refutes Appellants'
argument that Shih's anti-reflection layer is not in a suitable location to provide
a teaching to modify Inada's low reflection layer 3a as proposed by the Examiner.
In particular, the Examiner argues that Shih's Figure 4 (as well as Shih's Figure 7)
teaches that the anti-reflection layer (alleged to be a combination of anti-reflection
layer 414 and black matrix 406) extends outside of Shih' s display region and
overlaps metal layer 410. Ans. 7.
However, as Appellants point out on pages 6-7 of the Appeal Brief, neither
anti-reflection layer 414 nor black matrix 406 is between metal lines (410) and a
thin-film transistor substrate layer (402). Thus, Appellants argue that Shih does not
teach to modify a structure that is in such a position (e.g., Inada's low reflection
layer 3a) as proposed by the Examiner. We agree. As shown in Shih's Figure 4,
(reproduced below), layers 414 and 406 are not located between layer 410 (metal
layer) and layer 402 (thin film transistor substrate (TFT)). Figure 7 is similarly
deficient as pointed out by Appellants on page 4 of the Reply Brief. The Examiner
does not resolve this point made by Appellants in the record.
4J2
I i 418
i----" !
' ! I
..... ~x~.:
'--400
~420
416 ·-!~J ................................ . .
[F\\:::'1:':;.;;:,~:_::,:;::]g::;[;::.:];:",C:::t·:: :,R~¥;~H~f11~~\M,~'-/'::< ;>,';': .. ':> ···· :··:.': .··.·: .. ::~+:~--408
FIG. 4
6
Appeal2017-009234
Application 13/628,811
Figure 4 is a diagram of a panel structure according to Shih.
In view of the above, we are persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's
reliance on Shih as discussed above. We therefore reverse Rejection 2. Because the
Examiner does not rely upon the additionally applied references applied in
Rejections 3-13 to cure this deficiency of Shih, we also reverse these rejections for
the same reasons.
Each rejection is reversed.
DECISION
ORDER
REVERSED
7