Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2020

15063952 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/063,952 03/08/2016 Mark Frederick Valentine MM02005 1032
138908 7590 07/31/2020
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
KELLEY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2020 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):
BIPLaw_docketing@burrusiplaw.com
pburrus@burrusiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK FREDERICK VALENTINE,
ADRIAN GHEORGHE MANEA, and SEN YANG

Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Motorola Mobility, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the invention as relating to “electronic devices
and corresponding methods, and more particularly to physically deformable
electronic devices.” Spec. 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An electronic device, comprising;
one or more processors;
a flexible display, operable with the one or more
processors; and
a louvered filter disposed along the flexible display;
the one or more processors to, when the flexible display is
deformed by one or more bends, present, with the flexible
display, a first image through a first portion of the louvered filter
and a second image through a second portion of the louvered
filter.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Daniel US 2010/0182218 A1 July 22, 2010
Ko US 2013/0155052 A1 June 20, 2013
Cho et al. (“Cho”) US 2015/0234508 A1 Aug. 20, 2015
Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2016/0109973 A1 April 21, 2016

Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–12, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ko and Daniel. Final Act. 4.
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ko, Daniel, and Kim. Final Act. 10.
Claims 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ko, Daniel, and Cho. Final Act. 11.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light
of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ISSUES
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections, and the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant proffers sufficient argument and evidence
to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings
and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. In our analysis below, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis.
Based on the presented arguments, we identify the following issue for
our review:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, does
the Examiner’s proposed combination of modifying the structure of Ko with
the teachings of Daniel result in an inoperable combination?
Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

4
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ko teaches all of the
limitations except that “Ko does not explicitly disclose the louvered filter.”
To address the deficiency, the Examiner introduces Daniel, finding that
Daniel teaches the use of a louver for blocking light. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan “would modify Ko such that the
cutoff filter for blocking light in the bent display may include a louver
design, for the same purpose of preventing unwanted light caused by the
bent display.” Id.
Appellant argues against the combination. Specifically, Appellant
argues:
In the present case, combining Daniel with Ko creates an
inoperative device. This is true because Ko teaches alternating
pixels across the entirety of its display. As such, pixels from the
left edge of the display must reach the left eye, as do pixels from
the right edge of the display. The same is true with the right eye:
pixels from the left edge of the display must reach the right eye,
while pixels from the right edge of the display must also reach
the right eye. Daniel’s louvered device prevents this from
happening, and thus prevents the combination from properly
working.
Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant further explains:
It would not be obvious to incorporate the louvered device of
Daniel into Ko because doing so would render Ko inoperable for
its intended purpose. To wit, Ko is directed to the presentation of
three-dimensional images in accordance with a changed shape of
a flexible display, “thereby implementing various 3D effects
while maintaining a 3D stereoscopic image on the 3D shape
changed flexible display.” Ko, paragraph [054]. The addition of
Daniel’s louver device would prevent this from occurring,
thereby rendering Ko unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not make the
combination.
Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

5
Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant because prior art must be evaluated for what
the reference would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874
F.2d 804, 807–808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “If references taken in combination
would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . such references teach
away from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima
facie case of obviousness.” McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d
1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also Tec Air, Inc. v.
Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“If when
combined, the references ‘would produce a seemingly inoperative device,’
then they teach away from their combination.”) (quoting In re Sponnoble,
405 F.2d 578, 587 (CCPA 1969); also citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (where the court concluded that, essentially, “French
teaches away from the board’s proposed modification” because “if the
French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable
for its intended purpose). Here, as argued by Appellant, Ko teaches 3D,
bendable display that uses alternating left-eye and right-eye pixels across the
width of the display. That is, the pixels alternate between providing a left
eye image and a right eye image such that each pixel is only viewable by the
appropriate eye. As Ko explains:
Left eye images and right eye images are discriminately and
simultaneously output from the flexible display 100. Each of the
left and right eye images contains visual information in
accordance with disparity to enable a user to sense a 3D effect.
Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

6
Ko ¶ 69. Ko achieves the 3D effect by using a parallax barrier which blocks
the right eye from viewing left eye pixels and blocks the left eye from
viewing right eye pixels. Ko ¶70. Ko further explains:
In particular, some of a plurality of the cutoff parts 312 restrict a
light path of a right eye image to prevent the right eye image of
the flexible display unit 100 from being incident on a left eye of
a user, while the rest of the cutoff parts 312 restrict a light path
of a left eye image to prevent the left eye image of the flexible
display unit 100 from being incident on a right eye of the user.
Hence, the left eye image and the right eye image are selectively
incident of the user’s left eye and the user’s right eye via the
transmittive part 314, respectively, thereby enabling the user to
watch a 3D stereoscopic image.
Ko ¶ 71. Ko illustrates this pixel configuration in Figure 3, which shows
how the parallax barrier operates to create a 3D effect:

Ko’s Figure 3 provides an illustration of the implementation principle
of a 3D image of a parallax barrier
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have modified Ko’s parallax barrier to use a louver filter as taught by
Daniel. We agree with Appellant that replacing the parallax barrier in Ko
Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

7
with Daniel’s louver render Ko inoperable. The angling of Daniel’s slats
would not allow for the selective filtering of pixels alternating across Ko’s
display to allow neighboring pixels to be viewable by only left eye and right
eye, respectively. That is, a louver would not work with alternating pixels
because the louver would block all of the pixels in an area from the view of
one of the eyes, rather than block only alternating pixels. Thus, the
Examiner has not set forth sufficient evidence or technical reasoning
persuasive to rebut Appellant’s arguments that the proffered combination
would result in an inoperable device. Ans. 14–15. Reply Br. 9.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the ordinarily
skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the references as
suggested by the Examiner, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 over the cited combination of
Ko and Daniel. For the same reasons, we also reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of independent claim 16 and each dependent claim on
appeal.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections. More specifically, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-002760
Application 15/063,952

8

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 16,
17, 19
103 Ko, Daniel 1–12, 16,
17, 19
13, 20 103 Ko, Daniel, Kim 13, 20
14, 15, 18 103 Ko, Daniel, Cho 14, 15, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED