Ex Parte ZUIDEMA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

14563031 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/563,031 12/08/2014 HANS ZUIDEMA
24737 7590 02/27/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2005P023 7 lUS 5252
EXAMINER
DABE!, JYOTSNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS ZUIDEMA, HENRICUS J.C. KUIJPERS,
and ROEL PENTERMAN
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to finally reject claims 1-7, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 8,
2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated December 15, 2016 ("Final
Act."); Appeal Brief filed May 9, 2017, as corrected June 28, 2017 ("Appeal
Br."); Examiner's Answer dated October 6, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief
filed December 4, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Bib Data
Sheet 1 ), which also is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
The Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant's disclosure relates to a lenticular device for an
autostereoscopic display apparatus and a method of producing the device.
Spec. 1; Abstract. The display apparatus comprises an image display device
for providing a display output composed of rows and columns of pixels, and
the lenticular device comprises an array of lenticular elements for directing
the outputs from respective groups of pixels in mutually different directions
so as to enable a stereoscopic image to be perceived. Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A lenticular device for an autostereoscopic display
apparatus, the lenticular device comprising:
an array of lenticular elements formed on a
substrate, the array of lenticular elements extending
between a substrate surface, having an upper surface
which corresponds in shape to curved lenticular element
surfaces, and a polymer surface layer;
wherein the polymer surface layer is located
immediately above the array of lenticular elements; and
wherein the polymer surface layer has a depth that
reaches beyond peaks of the upper surface of the
substrate and extends partly into each cavity that defines
the lenticular shape of each respective lenticular
element of the array, thereby enclosing the array of
lenticular elements to form a mechanical fixture
comprising a plurality of polymer capsules filled with a
liquid crystal material.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App'x) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).
2
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Liang WO 02/056097 A2 July 18, 2002
de Zwart et al., A 20" Switchable Auto-Stereoscopic 2D/3D Display,
Proceedings of IDW '04, The 11th International Display Workshops,
1459--1460 (2004) ("de Zwart").
The Rejection
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejection:
claims 1-7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over de Zwart in view of Liang. Final Act. 3.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection for principally the same reasons provided by Appellant at pages 8-
9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2--4 of the Reply Brief. We add the
following.
The Examiner determines that the combination of de Zwart and Liang
suggests a lenticular device satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and
thus, concludes that the combination would have rendered the claim
obvious. Final Act. 3-5 (citing de Zwart, Abstract, Fig. 1; Liang 5, 11. 1-7,
12, 11. 1-11 (Section III), 16, 11. 12-14, Fig. 7).
Regarding the recitation "extends partly into each cavity that defines
the lenticular shape of each respective lenticular element of the array," the
Examiner relies on the Liang reference for teaching this claim limitation.
3
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Liang teaches a
thermoset precursor composition that is dispersed into the liquid crystal (LC)
composition and that the mixture is spread on the microcup array to form a
polymer surface layer. Id. at 5 (citing Liang 5, 11. 1-7, 12, 11. 1-11 (Section
III), 16, 11. 12-14, Fig. 7). The Examiner further finds that because the
precursor layer will have a certain thickness on the top of the microcup array
that forms the polymer surface layer, the layer formed "extends partly into
each cavity ( cavity of LC cells)" that defines the microstructure shape of
each respective microstructure of the array. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest the limitation
"extends partly into each cavity that defines the lenticular shape of each
respective lenticular element of the array," as recited in the claim. Appeal
Br. 8; see Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant contends
the Examiner does NOT mention anything regarding the
claimed "into each cavity that defines the lenticular shape of
each respective lenticular element of the array." The Examiner
does not provide any comparison or explanation on how this
claimed feature is obvious in view of de Zwart and Liang. The
Examiner merely recites "extends partly into each cavity ( cavity
of LC cells)."
Appeal Br. 9 ( emphasis omitted). Appellant also contends "there is no
suggestion of 'each cavity that defines the lenticular shape."' Id. at 9.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of de Zwart and Liang
teaches or suggests the recitation "extends partly into each cavity that
defines the lenticular shape of each respective lenticular element of the
4
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
array," as required by claim 1. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (holding that the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness).
None of the portions of Liang that the Examiner relies upon in the
rejection teach or suggest this limitation of the claim. See Liang 5, 12, 16,
Fig. 7. Although the cited portions of pages 5, 12, and 16 of Liang describe
a process of filling microcups with a LC composition, sealing the microcups
using a UV curable composition, and then laminating the sealed microcups
with a substrate pre-coated with an adhesive layer, there is no teaching or
suggestion that the UV curable composition or any other layer of Liang' s
structure extends partly into each cavity that defines the lenticular shape of
each respective lenticular element of the array, as required by claim 1.
Moreover, as Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 8), the
Examiner does not identify sufficient evidence or adequately explain how
Liang' s teachings regarding the "preparation of microcups" and "filling
microcups with a LC composition" (Liang 5) teaches or suggest the "extends
partly into each cavity" recitation of the claim. Although Figure 7 of Liang
describes a continuous roll-to-roll process for filling an array of
microcups (73) with a LC composition (74) containing a thermoset precursor
composition (see Liang 14), it does not teach or suggest that the thermoset
precursor composition forms a layer that extends partly into each cavity that
defines the lenticular shape of each respective lenticular element of the array
in the manner claimed. To the contrary, the Liang reference actually teaches
that the thermoset precursor composition is incompatible with the LC
composition, and separates and forms a layer "on top of the LC phase."
Liang 14.
5
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
The Examiner also does not identify evidence or provide reasoning
sufficient to support a finding that one of ordinary skill would have had
reason to modify de Zwart's prior art LCD panel to incorporate a polymer
surface layer that extends partly into each cavity that defines the lenticular
shape of each respective lenticular element of the array, as would be
required to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (requiring "reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness") ( quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In particular, at pages 2-3 of the Answer, the Examiner does not
adequately explain why Figure 7 of Liang and the reference's disclosures at
pages 5, 12, and 16 would have led one of ordinary skill to modify de
Zwart's "PI" layer (as depicted in Figure 1 of de Zwart) to extend partly into
each cavity of each of the LC-filled lenticular lens. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-
Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]bviousness concerns
whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been
motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at
the claimed invention." ( emphasis in original)).
Moreover, the Examiner does not direct us to any teaching or
suggestion in the prior art regarding the technical feasibility of modifying de
Zwart's PI layer to extend partly into each cavity of each LC-filled lenticular
lens; the impact that would have on the operation of the de Zwart's LCD
panel; or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in making such modification. For example, the
Examiner provides no discussion regarding what impact such a modification
6
Appeal 2018-001 717
Application 14/563,031
would have on the de Zwart's panel's switchable 2D/3D display capability,
which is a feature that de Zwart teaches is required for its LCD panel.
The Examiner's statement that "de Zwart when modified by Liang
teaches that the polymer surface layer extends partly into each cavity that
defines the lenticular shape of each respective lenticular element of the
array" (Ans. 3) is conclusory and, without more, insufficient to sustain the
Examiner's rejection. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (holding "rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements").
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
determination that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
de Zwart and Liang to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Because claims 2---6 each depends from claim 1, we also cannot
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Because independent claim
7 recites the same "extends partly into each cavity that defines the lenticular
shape of each respective lenticular element of the array" limitation as
claim 1 ( compare Appeal Br. 17 ( claim 7), with Appeal Br. 16 ( claim 1) ), we
also cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of de Zwart and Liang.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7