3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 2021

2020002407 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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. 15/109,092 06/29/2016 Jong-Seok Shin 74761US005 5615 32692 7590 03/31/2021 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PO BOX 33427 ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427 EXAMINER LY, TOAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2887 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2021 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): LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JONG-SEOK SHIN __________ Appeal 2020-002407 Application 15/109,092 Technology Center 2800 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as 3M Company. Appeal Brief dated August 20, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 2. Appeal 2020-002407 Application 15/109,092 2 1. An optical film, comprising: a monolithic collimating reflective polarizer; and an array of concave microlenses disposed on a major surface of the collimating reflective polarizer. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: (1) claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Zhou et al.;2 and (2) claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Zhou in view of Weber et al.3 B. DISCUSSION The sole issue on appeal is whether the Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhou describes an optical film comprising a “monolithic collimating reflective polarizer” as recited in the claims on appeal. According to the Appellant, “the phrase ‘monolithic collimating reflective polarizer’ describes a single film which both collimates and acts as a reflective polarizer.”4 Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 2 (indicating that the claimed “monolithic collimating reflective polarizer” corresponds to “element 310 on page 8, line 20, and in FIG. 3” and “element 210 on page 6, line 18, and in FIG. 2”). 2 US 2009/0219461 A1, published September 3, 2009 (“Zhou”). 3 WO 2013/059228 A1, published April 25, 2013 (“Weber”). 4 We note that the phrase “monolithic collimating reflective polarizer” does not appear in the original disclosure. Appeal 2020-002407 Application 15/109,092 3 The Examiner relies on paragraphs 23, 26, 27, and 38 of Zhou to show that Zhou describes the claimed “monolithic collimating reflective polarizer.” Final Act. 2–3.5 Zhou discloses, In one embodiment, the display system comprises: a light source, a first film comprising a first surface texture layer that is formed of a first material of a first refractive index, and a second film comprising a second surface texture layer that is formed of a second material of a second refractive index. . . . The first film and/or second film can comprise a reflective polarizer layer. Zhou ¶ 23 (emphasis added). Zhou discloses that [t]he first surface texture layer and the second surface texture layer comprise unit structures independently selected from the group consisting of hemispherical structures, partial hemispherical structures, ellipsoidal structures, immersed spherical beads, ellipsoidal beads, “bell-shape” bump and complex lens shape structures. Zhou ¶ 23; see also Zhou ¶ 22 (disclosing that Fig. 2A shows partial hemispherical structures, Fig. 2B shows hemispherical structures, Fig. 2C shows ellipsoidal structures, Fig. 2D shows immersed spherical beads, Fig. 2E shows “bell-shape” structures, and Fig. 2F shows complex lens shape). Zhou discloses that “[t]he surface textures bearing any of these lens structures can both collimate and diffuse the incident light.” Zhou ¶ 22 (emphasis added); see also Zhou ¶ 26 (disclosing that the term “diffuse” is intended to “include light scattering or diffusion by reflection, refraction or diffraction from surface textures, dispersed particles, or layers or regions of the display film stack”). 5 Final Office Action dated April 24, 2019. Appeal 2020-002407 Application 15/109,092 4 The Appellant argues that “Zhou is silent on teaching a single-film which combines a collimation effect with a reflective polarizer.” Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant argues that “Zhou, at most, describes a reflective polarizer layer with a collimating surface structure on an adjacent but separate film.” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis added). The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The Appellant contends that a “monolithic collimating reflective polarizer” is a single film that both collimates and acts as a reflective polarizer. Appeal Br. 3. However, that single film may comprise more than one layer. See Spec. 2, l. 30 (disclosing “a multilayer optical film”); Spec. 6, l. 21 (disclosing that “collimating reflective polarizer 210 may be a multilayer collimating reflective polarizer” (emphasis added)). Zhou describes, in one embodiment, first and second films comprising first and second surface texture layers, respectively, which can both collimate and diffuse (e.g., reflect) incident light. Zhou ¶¶ 22, 23. Zhou discloses that each of those first and second films can also comprise a reflective polarizer layer. Zhou ¶ 23 (“The first film and/or second film can comprise a reflective polarizer layer.”). Thus, Zhou’s first film and second film are each a single film that both collimates and acts as a reflective polarizer and, based on the Appellant’s description,6 are each a “monolithic collimating reflective polarizer” within the scope of the claims on appeal. The rejections on appeal are sustained.7 6 Appeal Br. 3. 7 The Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 2 as a group and contends that claims 4–10 and 12–16 “are patentable for at least the same reasons as for [claims Appeal 2020-002407 Application 15/109,092 5 C. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–10, 12–16 102(a)(1) Zhou 1, 2, 4–10, 12–16 3, 11 103 Zhou, Weber 3, 11 Overall Outcome 1–16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 1 and 2]” and “claims 3 and 11 are patentable at least for being dependent on an allowable independent claim.” Appeal Br. 4.