SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

15655649 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
15/655,649 07/20/2017 Volker Barnhart VERSCHOOR Q229396 6406
23373 7590 08/28/2020
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LILLIS, EILEEN DUNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VOLKER BARNHART VERSCHOOR,
ROBERT SJANG JOSINE VAN DIJK,
MICHAEL JOHANNES ANNA MARIA WALTERS,
JOHANNES HERMANUS VAN DEN TILLAAR,
JOHANNES CORNELIS ADRIAAN HAMERS, and
PETRUS JOHANNES GERARDUS VAN LIESHOUT
____________

Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The above-identified application seeks reissue of US 9,086,850 B2.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

2
rejecting claims 1–14 in this reissue application. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
Bracketed material indicative of deletions from, and underlining indicative
of additions to, previous versions of the claims have been removed for ease
of reading.
1. A display system comprising:
a continuous flexible display;
a support frame comprising two main display supports
being hingeable with respect to each other and each structurally
configured to support a respective portion of the flexible
display, a segment of the flexible display being located between
the respective portions, wherein the two main display supports
are hingeable between a closed configuration for fixing the
flexible display in a storage position and an open configuration
for fixing the flexible display in an open position; and
at least one additional display support arranged to
physically contact and support the segment of the flexible
display in the storage position of the flexible display, and to
physically contact the segment of the flexible display in the
open position of the flexible display,.
wherein the two main display supports are hinged to the
at least one additional display support,
wherein, in the storage position of the flexible display,
the at least one additional display support constrains curvature
of the segment to a predefined curvature having a radius which
over an area of the curvature is larger than a critical radius for
the flexible display.
Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kimmel US 7,714,801 B2 May 11, 2010
Ma US 8,228,667 B2 July 24, 2012
Kao US 8,385,055 B2 Feb. 26, 2013

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 2–5.
II. Claims 1–102 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite. Id. at 5–6.
III. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Ma. Id. at 8–9.
IV. Claims 1–8 and 10–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a/e) as
anticipated by Kao. Id. at 9–11.
V. Claims 1, 3–6, and 9–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kimmel. Id. at 11–13.

2 The Examiner clarified that “[t]he prosecution history indicates that the
listing of claim 11 in the formal rejection statement of the August 2019
Office [A]ction was inadvertently made in error” and also that “the
identification of claims ‘12–14’ at page 6 of the August 2019 Office
[A]ction was improper because those claims do not depend from claim 1.”
Ans. 3–4. The Answer is clear that only claims 1–10 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Id. at 7–8.
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

4
OPINION
Rejection I
Claim 1 and its Dependent Claims
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that “the two main
display supports are hingeable between a closed configuration for fixing the
flexible display in a storage position and an open configuration for fixing the
flexible display in an open position” and “at least one additional display
support arranged to physically contact and support the segment of the
flexible display in the storage position of the flexible display, and to
physically contact the segment of the flexible display in the open position of
the flexible display.” Final Act. 3 (quoting Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.)).
The Examiner finds that “no hinge connection consistent with claim 1 is
evident” when looking at Figs. 4a–d (depicting the elected embodiment “to
which the claims shall be restricted”). Id. at 4, 3. The Examiner takes the
position that even though the Specification “state[s] that supports 4, 5 are
connected by hinges 6, 7, . . . such connection is not illustrated in Figs. 4a–
4d beyond the generalized depiction of circles.” Id. at 4.
Appellant responds that the portion of the Specification identified by
the Examiner and as set forth in column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 11 of the
Specification adequately supports the identified claim limitations. Appeal
Br. 8–9. Appellant further responds that “a more detailed illustration is not
required to demonstrate possession of the invention” because “the artisan of
ordinary skill would have been well-apprised of both the structure of a
‘hinge’ and the nature of elements ‘hinged’ together.” Id. at 10–11
(emphasis omitted). Appellant additionally responds that as to any
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

5
purported failure of the claims to “identify a particular structural
arrangement, [or] reasonably convey a particular structural arrangement,”
this “is properly a question of enablement, not possession under written
description.” Id. at 11–12.
The Examiner replies that even if a type of hinge is known that would
“connect . . . supports 4 and 8 together” and “connect . . . supports 5 and 8
together,” “such a hinged arrangement would not allow for the necessary
translation of all the relevant parts making-up the display system.” Ans. 14–
15. The Examiner takes the position that “the patent statute is not satisfied
where the skilled artisan must rely upon subject matter that is conventional
in the art, and also must determine a working solution to achieve a claimed
result” in order to arrive at “the inventive subject matter of the claims.” Id.
at 15–16 (emphasis omitted).
We determine that Appellant has the better position. The claim does
not recite any particular structure for the hinge, so the Specification is not
required to describe any such particular structure for the hinge. The claim
merely recites the function of hinging together two display supports, and that
these two display supports are hinged to an additional display support.
Given the nature of the described function, we are persuaded that the
disclosure of the Specification is sufficient to support that Appellant was in
possession of the claimed invention. That is, the textual disclosure
reasonably conveys to one having ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing
date, that Appellant possessed the subject matter of “the two main display
supports are hingeable between a closed configuration for fixing the flexible
display in a storage position and an open configuration for fixing the flexible
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

6
display in an open position” and “at least one additional display support
arranged to physically contact and support the segment of the flexible
display in the storage position of the flexible display, and to physically
contact the segment of the flexible display in the open position of the
flexible display.” Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.). See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v.
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Thus, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims as failing to
comply with the written description requirement on this basis.
Claim 11 and its Dependent Claims
Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “a space for constraining a
curvature radius of the flexible display to a predefined curvature radius.”
Final Act. 4 (quoting Appeal Br. 42 (Claims App.)). The Examiner finds
that the description in the Specification of “between the main display
supports 4, 5 there is sufficient free space for enabling a partial curvature of
the display segment 3a without conflicting with the respective main display
supports” and “the additional display support 8 constrains with its support
surface 8a the display segment 3a in order to prevent a radius of the
curvature which is too small” (Spec. 4:12–18) “does not appear to be
reconcilable with Fig. 4b, wherein the main display supports (4, 5) and the
additional display support (8) are unconnected, which would seemingly
render support 8 incapable of constraining the display segment (3a).” Final
Act. 4 (citing Spec. 4:15–32).
Appellant responds that in light of the disclosure in the Specification
at column 4, lines 12–32, “the artisan of ordinary skill would have
understood that the inventor was in possession of the limitations of
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

7
claim 11.” Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant further responds that “a more
detailed illustration is not required to demonstrate possession of the
invention” and that the Examiner’s concerns regarding whether the
Specification “teaches the skilled artisan how to implement a limitation . . .
is properly a questions of enablement, not possession under written
description.” Id. at 15.
The Examiner replies that the passage of the Specification identified
in the Appeal Brief “indicate[s] that, in order to create the partial curvature
of the flexible display 3 when it is moved between the open and closed
positions, the additional support 8 must form a bridge that pushes against the
flexible display,” but there is no clear structural arrangement disclosed that
would allow additional support 8 to “provide that pushing bridge” that is
required in the Specification. Ans. 16–17.
Again, we determine that Appellant has the better position. Although
the Figures do not illustrate main display supports 4, 5 connected with
additional support 8 (Final Act. 4), claim 11 itself recites “a first hinge
connecting the first display support to the third display support . . . and a
second hinge connecting the second display support to the third display
support” (Appeal Br. 42 (Claims App.)), such that there is a recited
structural arrangement (e.g., the connection between the three display
supports 4, 5, 8) that would allow for additional support 8 to serve as a
bridge that pushes against the flexible display. The disclosure at column 4,
lines 12–32 identified by Appellant is sufficient to support that Appellant
was in possession of the claimed invention. That is, the disclosure
reasonably conveys to one having ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

8
date, that Appellant possessed the subject matter of “a space for constraining
a curvature radius of the flexible display to a predefined curvature radius.”
Appeal Br. 42 (Claims App.). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11 and its dependent claims as failing to comply with the written
description requirement on this basis.
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that “[c]laim 1 is unclear as to the metes and
bounds associated with the new terminology ‘constrains curvature of the
segment to a predefined curvature.” Final Act. 5. More particularly, the
Examiner finds that the “word ‘constrains’ would imply positive physical
engagement, as opposed to mere structural capability . . . [b]ut, there is not a
connection between parts positively recited in claim 1 such that the physical
engagement would include a boundary.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Appellant responds that “the [S]pecification apprises the skilled
artisan with reasonable clarity . . . as to the constrained nature of the
elements recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 17 (referring to Specification 4:12–
32). Appellant further responds that the Specification “employs the term
‘constrain’ in an ordinary manner, [and] the artisan of ordinary skill would
have understood the plain meaning thereof.” Id. at 18.
“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose
meaning is unclear.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
(citing MPEP § 2173.05(e)); see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-
006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential)
(adopting the approach for assessing indefiniteness approved by the Federal
Circuit in Packard). As set forth in the Specification, main display supports
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

9
4, 5 are connected via hinges in a hinge part, where the hinge part “also
work[s] as an additional display support 8.” Spec. 3:66–4:3. The
Specification also explains that the free space between main display
supports 4, 5 enables a partial curvature of display segment 3a without
conflicting with main display supports 4, 5, and that additional display
surface 8 constrains display segment 3a in order to prevent a radius of
curvature which is too small. Id. at 4:12–18. In accordance with the
Specification, there is clearly a connection between display supports 4, 5, 8,
as well as physical engagement between additional display support 8 and
display segment 3a that results in constraining of the radius of curvature of
display segment 3a as claimed.
We do not agree that the lack of an explicit recitation of a connection
between the display supports in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. The
additional display support’s function of constraining the curvature of the
segment of the flexible display to a predefined curvature is clear. Thus, we
do not agree with the Examiner that the claim fails to define the metes and
bounds of the invention with reasonable clarity. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–10 which depend therefrom, as indefinite.
Rejection III
The Examiner finds that Ma discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including among other things, (i) “a support frame 202
including two main display supports 116, 118 . . . [that] are hingeable with
respect to each other as indicated by Figs. 9 and 13, and are hinged to [an]
additional display support 206” and (ii) “[t]he additional display support 206
constrains curvature of the display segment [which is located between
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

10
portions 24, 26 of flexible display 14, 152].” Final Act. 8 (citing Ma Figs. 9,
13; 5:61–6:8, 7:18–23). The Examiner takes the position that “the claimed
‘critical radius’ feature is considered to be satisfied because Ma depicts a
circular curvature of the display segment in the closed or storage position of
the support frame 202.” Id. (citing Ma Fig. 9); see also Ans. 19 (citing Ma
Figs. 9, 13) (the Examiner finding that third supporting layer 206 is in
contact with flexible display 14 in both the open and closed positions and the
flexible display exhibits a circular curvature in support of a determination
that Ma’s additional display support 206 is necessarily capable of
performing the claimed function of “constrain[ing] curvature of the segment
[of the flexible display] to a predefined curvature having a radius which over
an area of the curvature is larger than a critical radius for the flexible
display,” as claimed).
Appellant argues that “Ma does not . . . disclose that the plurality of
supporting layers (206) ‘constrain[] curvature of the segment to a predefined
curvature having a radius which over an area of the curvature is larger than a
critical radius for the continuous flexible display,’ as recited in claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant argues that Ma merely discloses supporting
layers 206 as providing supportive force. Id. (citing Ma 6:2–8, 5:61–63).
Appellant contends that any assertion of support by supporting layers 206 “is
at most speculation” and “[t]here is no constraint in the closed position in
Ma.” Reply Br. 7.
Although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or
functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the
prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

11
1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch &
Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover
what a device is, not what a device does”). Therefore, an apparatus of the
prior art meets the recited functionally-defined limitation (here, “constrains
curvature of the segment to a predefined curvature having a radius which
over an area of the curvature is larger than a critical radius for the flexible
display”) if it is capable of the recited function. The prior art reference need
not envision the device actually being used to perform the claimed function.
See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477 (“Although Schreiber is correct that [the
prior art] Harz does not address the use of the disclosed structure to dispense
popcorn, the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat the
Board’s finding of anticipation.”). “[C]hoosing to define an element
functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” Id. at 1478. This
risk is that Appellant may bear the burden to prove that the prior art does not
possess the functional characteristic.
Although we acknowledge Appellant’s observation that Ma does not
explicitly disclose that third supporting layers 206 are used to constrain
curvature of a segment of flexible display panel 14 (Appeal Br. 20–21), the
lack of explicit recitation of the claimed function in the reference does not
constitute evidence or persuasive argument to support that Ma’s prior art
structure is incapable of performing the functionally defined limitation of the
claimed apparatus, where the Examiner has provided reasoning to support a
determination that the functionally defined limitation necessarily flows from
the teachings of Ma.
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

12
Appellant also argues that the Examiner errs in considering Ma’s
supporting structure 202 as the claimed “support frame.” Appeal Br. 21.
More particularly, Appellant argues that “the supporting structure (202) is
merely an example of ‘supporting structure 52 . . . disposed between the
main body 12 and the flexible display panel 14 . . . used for providing
supporting force to the flexible display panel 14 when the cover portion 20 is
rotated to the same horizontal surface where the connecting portion 18 and
the body portion 16 are located.’” Id. at 21–22 (quoting Ma 3:58–63, 5:54–
58). Appellant appears to take the position that main body 12, including
body portion 16, connecting portion 18, and cover portion 20 forming
containing space 22, is more properly considered the support frame. Id. at
21 (citing Ma 2:34–39). That main body 12 may also be considered a
support frame does not provide persuasive argument as to why the Examiner
is in error in considering first supporting layer 116, second supporting layer
118, and a plurality of third supporting layers 206 as the claimed support
frame. The Examiner has explained how first supporting layer 116, second
supporting layer 118, and a plurality of third supporting layers 206 meet the
requirements of the claimed support frame (Final Act. 8), and Appellant has
not identified any error in such explanation. Moreover, Ma explicitly
describes supporting structure 202, encompassing elements 116, 118, 206, as
providing a supporting force. Ma 3:58–4:4.
Appellant also argues that “Ma does not disclose that the first
supporting layer (116) and the second supporting layer (118) are hingeable
or hinged to the plurality of third supporting layers (206).” Appeal Br. 22.
More particularly, Appellant argues that “Ma describes that the connecting
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

13
portion (108), body portion (106), and cover portion (110) are connected as
to be pivoted and rotated (e.g., via shafts 112, 114) between the open and
closed configuration” (id. (citing Ma 6:19–24, 4:35–37, 52–56)), and that
first supporting layer 116, second supporting layer 118, and plurality of third
supporting layers 206 “simply rotate with the connecting portion (108), body
portion (106), and cover portion (110) . . . owing to positioning thereof . . .
between the device body and panel, but . . . are not themselves connected by
hinges, hinged, or hingeable in any way” (id.). Appellant maintains that
Figures 9 and 13 do not illustrate any hingeable configuration. Id. at 23.
An Examiner’s burden of proving unpatentability when rejecting
claims in a patent application is by a preponderance of the evidence. In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In order to satisfy this
standard, the evidence must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that
the alleged facts are actually true. See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 542
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (noting that the preponderance of the evidence standard
“only requires the fact finder ‘to believe that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its nonexistence.”’ (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371
(1970)). In our view, Ma discloses a hinge (e.g., a movable joint which
connected linked objects) by a preponderance of the evidence, when
considering that additional display supports 206 form a curved configuration
in which adjacent display supports remain connected at adjacent lower
corner points (Ma Fig. 9), as well as a straight configuration in which
additional display supports 206 abut each other (or supporting layer 116,
118) along the entirety of each adjacent side (id. Fig. 13).
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

14
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s finding that Ma discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ma. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 4, and 7–12, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments and
reasoning. Appeal Br. 23–27.
Rejection IV
The Examiner finds that Kao discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including among other things, an “additional display
support 113 [that] constrains the curvature of the display segment [at 113]
. . . wherein the claimed ‘critical radius’ feature is considered to be satisfied
because Kao depicts a circular curvature of the display segment in the closed
or storage position of the support frame.” Final Act. 9–10 (citing Kao Fig.
1, 3:11–27); see also Ans. 22 (citing Kao Figs. 1–2) (the Examiner finding
that bending mechanism 113, including arc-shaped connecting
elements 1131, is in contact with flexible display 110 in both the open and
closed/storage positions and flexible display 110 exhibits a semi-circular
curvature at the fold/bend in support of a determination that Kao’s bending
mechanism 113, including arc-shaped connecting elements 1131, is
necessarily capable of performing the claimed function of “constrain[ing]
curvature of the segment [of the flexible display] to a predefined curvature
having a radius which over an area of the curvature is larger than a critical
radius for the flexible display,” as claimed).
Appellant argues that “at most, Kao describes that the display panel
(110) bends to cover the casing (140), and thus only the casing (140)
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

15
provides any means to ‘constrain[] curvature of the segment to a predefined
curvature having a radius which over an area of the curvature is larger than a
critical radius for the flexible display,’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 28; see also
Reply Br. 8 (citing Kao 4:33–46) (Appellant asserting that “Kao does not . . .
disclose that the connecting elements (1131) ‘in the storage position . . .
constrain[] curvature of the segment,’ as recited in claim 1” and “at most,
Kao describes that the display panel (110) bends to cover the casing
(140).”).
Appellant also argues that “owing to the use of rollers (1132)
connecting the arc-shaped connecting elements (1131), unlimited rotation is
provided absent [the] presence of the casing (140).” Appeal Br. 29.
Although we acknowledge Appellant’s observation that Kao does not
explicitly disclose that bending mechanism 113, including arc-shaped
connecting elements 1131, is used to constrain curvature of a segment of
flexible display (at 113) (Appeal Br. 28; Reply Br. 8), the lack of explicit
recitation of the claimed function in the reference does not constitute
evidence or persuasive argument to support that Kao’s prior art structure is
incapable of performing the functionally defined limitation of the claimed
apparatus, where the Examiner has provided reasoning to support a
determination that the functionally defined limitation necessarily flows from
the teachings of Kao.
To the extent that Appellant is arguing that rollers 1132 would allow
unlimited rotation absent the presence of casing 140, thereby making Kao’s
prior art structure incapable of performing the functionally defined limitation
of the claimed apparatus (Appeal Br. 29), the Examiner responds that in the
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

16
embodiment of Figure 13, “the structural arrangement of the bumps 10131
and the mounting elements 10132 would restrict relative rotation, because
each set of bumps/mounts is depicted as being restricted to about 90º of
rotation (at least in the two-dimensional plane of the page)” and “[t]his
disclosure in Kao is consistent with the viewing angle for the flexible
display 110 that is illustrated in Fig. 4.” Ans. 24. Appellant does not
respond with sufficient particularity to the position of the Examiner set forth
in the Answer so as to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
bending mechanism 113, including elements 1131, is capable of the claimed
function of “constrain[ing] curvature of the segment [of the flexible display]
to a predefined curvature having a radius which over an area of the curvature
is larger than a critical radius for the flexible display,” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s finding that Kao discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a/e) as anticipated by Kao. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 2–8 and 10–14 for which Appellant relies on the same arguments and
reasoning. Appeal Br. 30–33.
Rejection V
The Examiner finds that Kimmel discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including among other things, an “additional display
support 5 [that] constrains the curvature of the display segment . . . wherein
the claimed ‘critical radius’ feature is considered to be satisfied because
Kimmel depicts a circular curvature of the display segment in the closed or
storage position of the support frame 1.” Final Act. 12 (citing Kimmel
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

17
Fig. 1, 3:42–45); see also Ans. 24–25 (citing Kimmel Figs. 1–2) (the
Examiner finding that “hinge structure 5 . . . is in contact with the flexible
display 2 in both the open . . . and closed/storage . . . positions” and “the
disclosed flexible display 2 exhibits a display area 2c . . . which is circular in
shape” in support of a determination that Kimmel’s hinge 5 is necessarily
capable of performing the claimed function of “constrain[ing] curvature of
the segment [of the flexible display] to a predefined curvature having a
radius which over an area of the curvature is larger than a critical radius for
the flexible display,” as claimed).
Appellant argues that “Kimmel fails to disclose the hinge (5), as well
as parts (3, 4) supporting the display (2) . . . ‘in the storage position of the
flexible display, the at least one additional display support constrains
curvature of the segment to a predefined curvature having a radius which
over an area of the curvature is larger than a critical radius for the flexible
display,’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 34 (citing Kimmel 3:30–37); see also
Reply Br. 8 (quoting Kimmel 3:42–45) (Appellant arguing that “Kimmel
does not . . . disclose that the hinge (5) ‘in the storage position . . .
constrain[] curvature of the segment,’ as recited in claim 1,” that “at most,
Kimmel describes that ‘a space for the display area 2c and the fold is
arranged in the hinge 5 according to FIG. 1,’” and that “[t]here is no
constraint of any kind by the hinge (5) disclosed in Kimmel.”).
Appellant also argues that Kimmel expressly discloses that “‘the
central part of the display 2 can freely move to a curved position,’” rather
than providing structure to constrain curvature of the segment to a
predefined curvature. Appeal Br. 34 (quoting Kimmel 3:52–55).
Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

18
Although we acknowledge Appellant’s observation that Kimmel does
not explicitly disclose that hinge 5 is used to constrain curvature of
segment 2c of flexible display 2 (Appeal Br. 34; Reply Br. 8), the lack of
explicit recitation of the claimed function in the reference does not constitute
evidence or persuasive argument to support that Kimmel’s prior art structure
is incapable of performing the functionally defined limitation of the claimed
apparatus, where the Examiner has provided reasoning to support a
determination that the functionally defined limitation necessarily flows from
the teachings of Kimmel.
As to Appellant’s reference in Kimmel of the central part of display 2
being able to “freely move to a curved position” (Kimmel 3:53–55), we note
that such discussion is in connection with the “embodiment according to
FIG. 9” in which “the display 2 is attached to the device 1 in such a manner
that it can move at least in the direction X of FIG. 9, and also in direction Y,
if necessary” (id. at 3:48–51). Such disclosure is not in connection with the
embodiment of Figs. 1–4 relied on by the Examiner in the articulated
rejection, and as such, is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
See Final Act. 12.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s finding that Kimmel discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a/e) as anticipated by Kao. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 3–6 and 9–14 for which Appellant relies on the same arguments and
reasoning. Appeal Br. 35–37.

Appeal 2020-004897
Application 15/655,649
Patent US 9,086,850 B2

19
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14 112, first
paragraph
Written Description 1–14
1–10 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 1–10
1, 3, 4, 7–
12
102(e) Ma 1, 3, 4, 7–12
1–8, 10–
14
102(a/e) Kao 1–8, 10–14
1, 3–6, 9–
14
102(b) Kimmel 1, 3–6, 9–14
Overall
Outcome
1–14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED