Ex Parte 6803984 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 2013

90009588 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

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. 90/009,588 09/28/2009 6803984 051700-5012-US 1875 24341 7590 04/30/2013 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PA) 2 PALO ALTO SQUARE 3000 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 700 PALO ALTO, CA 94306 EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 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. 95/000,507 09/28/2009 6803984 051700-5011-US 3244 24341 7590 04/30/2013 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PA) 2 PALO ALTO SQUARE 3000 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 700 PALO ALTO, CA 94306 EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP. Requester and Respondent v. LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) (2002) from the final decision of the Examiner adverse to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (2002). We affirm. Invention The '984 patent describes a method for manufacturing a liquid crystal display device. A TFT (thin-film transistor) substrate and a color filter substrate are cleaned, and a sealing material is coated onto the color filter substrate, without providing a hole structure for liquid crystal injection. The TFT substrate passes through the sealing material coating step without application of sealing material. '984 patent col. 5, ll. 39-50. A step is carried out for dropping the liquid crystal onto the TFT substrate in a region corresponding to an area inside the sealing material coated on the color filter substrate. The color filter substrate passes through the liquid crystal dropping step without having the liquid dropped thereon. Col. 5, ll. 56-61. Claims Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 are subject to reexamination. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected. Claims 5 and 6 are confirmed. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim in this appeal. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 3 1. A method for manufacturing a liquid crystal display device, comprising the steps of: providing at least a first substrate and a second substrate on a single production process line; passing the first and second substrates through a sealing material coating portion of the single production process line in serial order, a sealing material being coated on the second substrate with the first substrate being passed through the sealing material coating portion without forming a sealing material thereon; passing the first and the second substrates through a liquid crystal dispensing portion of the single production process line in serial order, liquid crystal being dispensed onto a pixel region of one of the first and second substrates with the other one of the first and second substrates being passed through the liquid crystal dispensing portion without dispensing liquid crystal thereon; and assembling the first substrate with the second substrate to form a liquid crystal panel of at least one liquid crystal display device. Prior Art Ishihara US 5,263,888 November 23, 1993 Sakai US 6,222,603 B1 April 24, 2001 Sasaki US 6,573,972 B2 June 3, 2003 Matsuda US 7,092,066 B2 August 15, 2006 Ota 1 JP 1997-68682 March 11, 1997 Taniguchi JP1999-109388 April 23, 1999 Nonaka JP 2000-2253548 August 11, 2000 1 An English translation accompanies each Japanese language reference. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 4 Owner’s Contentions Owner contends that the Examiner erred in entering the following grounds of rejections against claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10: I. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Matsuda; II. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda and Ishihara; III. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda and Ota; IV. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nonaka and Matsuda; V. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nonaka and Sasaki; VI. Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nonaka and Ishihara; VII. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nonaka and Taniguchi; VIII. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nonaka and Sakai. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 5 ANALYSIS Representative Claim Owner does not argue the limitations of any dependent claim. Further, Owner relies on the arguments for claim 1 (argued deficiencies with respect to Matsuda) in response to the § 103(a) rejections applied against claims 4 and 10. App. Br. 22. Accordingly, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii). 2 Claim Interpretation In this proceeding, the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Single production process line” The Examiner notes that the '984 patent does not explicitly define what is meant by the term “single production process line,” but the patent distinguishes the “single” line from the two parallel production lines of the 2 We have not considered a declaration attached to the Appeal Brief. The declaration “is not relied upon by Appellant in this appeal.” App. Br. 44. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 6 “related art.” Right of Appeal Notice mailed June 3, 2011 (RAN) at 11-12. The Examiner provides reasons in support of what the Examiner considers to be the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification: “the term, ‘single production process line’ means that there exists at least a portion of a production line that both the first and second substrates serially follow, even if the processes are not performed on both substrates, in contrast to parallel-running lines.” Id. at 12. Owner seems to agree in substance with the Examiner’s claim interpretation, but submits that the “portion” of the production line that both the first and second substrates serially follow includes the sealing material coating portion and the liquid crystal dropping portion. App. Br. 14-15. Requester submits that Owner misapprehends the Examiner’s claim interpretation, but alleges that the claims require that both substrates pass through both “dispensing” portions. Respondent Br. 2. Owner seems to advocate a meaning for the term “single production process line” that includes consideration of other limitations in the claim steps, as opposed to a definition for the term itself. In any event, the claims do require that both the first and second substrates pass though the sealing material coating portion of the process line and in addition pass through the liquid crystal dispensing portion of the process line. With respect to the meaning of “single production process line,” we adopt the Examiner’s interpretation as consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 7 “Passing . . . through” The '984 patent describes passing the TFT and color filter substrates through “steps.” E.g., col. 5, ll. 31-61; Fig. 2. However, the patent also provides the following: “[T]he production process line receives many thin film transistor substrates and color filter substrates in serial order. Each pair of substrates will pass through each component of the production process line.” '984 patent col. 7, ll. 23-27 (emphasis added). In the Examiner’s view, the relevant language of the claim by itself is not clear as to whether “passing through” a portion of the production line requires passing through the particular process equipment. RAN 12. In light of the Specification, the Examiner concludes that the claimed “passing through” a portion of the production line means that the substrates merely need to pass “by” a processing component along the same production line but not be physically inserted into the processing component. RAN 12-13. Owner misapprehends or mischaracterizes the Examiner’s claim interpretation. In particular, Owner submits that the term “passing through” should be given its plain meaning, which is distinct from “passing by.” App. Br. 16-17. We agree that “passing through” is distinct from “passing by.” However, the claim language with respect to what is “passed through” is not co-extensive in scope with the language of the written description. See Resonate Inc. v. Alteon Websystems, Inc., 338 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“limitations may not be read into a claim from a preferred embodiment when the claim language is broader than that embodiment”). While the written description speaks of passing substrates through production line “components,” the claims (e.g. claim 1) recite passing the Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 8 substrates through a sealing material coating “portion” and a liquid crystal dispensing “portion” of the production process line. If the claims were to be limited to passing the substrates through the actual component or apparatus, the claims would not use the broader term “portion.” The claims require passing the substrates through a “portion” of the production line that contains the sealing material component, and a “portion” of the production line that contains the liquid crystal dispensing component, but do not require that either substrate “pass through” the coating or dispensing apparatus. We agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and adopt it as the required broadest reasonable interpretation for what is required by the “passing through” of the substrates. “In serial order” The '984 patent provides little in the way of explanation with respect to how the substrates are passed through the components of the single production process line “in serial order.” However, the Abstract provides: The method includes the steps of providing at least a first substrate and a second substrate on a single production process line, passing the first and second substrates through a sealing material coating portion of the single production process line in serial order such that a sealing material is coated on the second substrate with the first substrate being passed through the sealing material coating portion without forming a sealing material thereon, passing the first and the second substrates through a liquid crystal dispensing portion of the single production process line in serial order such that liquid crystal is dispensed onto a pixel region of one of the first and second substrates with the other one of the first and second substrates being passed through the liquid crystal dispensing portion without dispensing liquid crystal thereon. . . . Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 9 '984 patent Abstract (emphasis added). The Abstract thus relates the “serial order” with one substrate being treated at a portion of the production line, with the other substrate not being treated at that particular portion of the production line. A dictionary defines the adjective “serial” to mean “1. Of, forming, or arranged in a series.” American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2007). Another dictionary defines the adjective “serial” to mean, “1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or arranged in a series, rank, or row » serial pictures« » serial observations« »a serial act like walking - A.T.Weaver«.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1993). A “series” is defined as: 1 : a group of usu. three or more things or events standing or succeeding in order and having a like relationship to each other : a spatial or temporal succession of persons or things : a group that has or admits an order of arrangement exhibiting progression »a concert series « »a TV series « »a series of talks« »a series of governors« »a series of three European maps - Nat'l Geographic«.” Id. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 10 The plain meaning of “in serial order” thus relates to items that are arranged in, or at least relate to, a series, rank, or row (e.g., a spatial or temporal succession, one after the other). The above-noted '984 patent Abstract’s use of the term is consistent with this ordinary meaning. That is, one substrate is passed through a portion of the production line and receives a treatment, and the other substrate is passed through the same portion of the production line but does not receive the treatment. The substrates do not pass in parallel through the sealing material coating portion of the production line, nor pass in parallel through the liquid crystal dispensing portion of the production line. The substrates pass through those portions of the production line in serial order -- i.e., one after the other. The broadest reasonable interpretation of substrates being passed through portions of the production line “in serial order” simply means that the substrates do not proceed in parallel through those portions, but one proceeds before the other. Owner advocates a narrow interpretation of the term, requiring that “a common line exists at least through the sealing material coating portion and also through the liquid crystal dispensing portion.” App. Br. 18; see also Rebuttal Br. 4-8. However, the position is not consistent with the plain meaning of “in serial order,” and not consistent with the '984 patent. Owner has not overcome the presumption that “in serial order” is to be interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 11 Matsuda Figure 4 of Matsuda is reproduced below. Figure 4 is said to schematically show the structure of an apparatus for manufacturing a liquid crystal display. Matsuda col. 6, ll. 59-62. A first TFT substrate 31 and a second color filter (CF) 32 are provided. In addition are provided a liquid crystal dropping unit 4 for dropping a liquid crystal on the first substrate 31, a resin applying unit 5 for applying a photo-curable resin on the first substrate 31, a processing unit 6 for bonding the first substrate 31 and the second substrate 32, and a UV irradiating unit 7 for applying UV rays to a panel that is bonded to further cure a photocurable resin. Id. at col. 6, l. 63 - col. 7, l. 20. Additionally, a substrate-carrying robot 9 moves the first substrate 31 and the second substrate 32 among the loading parts 1 and 2, the liquid crystal dropping unit 4, the resin applying unit 5, the processing unit 6, and the UV irradiating unit 7. Id. at col. 7, ll. 21-25. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 12 The liquid crystal dropping unit 4 and the resin applying unit 5 constitute a liquid crystal dropping/resin applying unit 8. Unit 8 is provided with a stage 8a, which moves between the liquid crystal dropping unit 4 and the resin applying unit 5 with the first substrate 31 loaded thereon. Id. at col. 7, ll. 26-32. Robot 9 picks up the second substrate 32 from the second loading unit 2 and places the substrate in processing unit 6. Id. at col. 8, l. 66 - col. 9, l. 12; see also Fig. 7. Robot 9 next picks up the first substrate 31 from the first loading unit 1 and transfers it on the stage 8a of the liquid crystal dropping unit 4. A sealing material is applied, after which a liquid crystal is dropped by the dispenser 4a within the area surrounded by the sealing material. The first substrate 31 is then transferred to the resin applying unit 5, which applies a photo-curable resin. Id. at col. 9, ll. 13-42. The first substrate 31 is next transferred to the processing unit 6 by robot 9, where the first substrate 31 and second substrate 32 are aligned and pressed together. Id. at col. 9, l. 42 et seq. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 13 Owner’s Arguments Regarding Matsuda Owner annotates Figure 4 of Matsuda, as reproduced below. According to Owner, solid lines are added to Figure 4 to illustrate the flow of the substrate 32 and dashed lines are added to illustrate the flow of substrate 31. App. Br. 21. Owner argues that substrate 32 does not pass through a sealing material coating portion. Id. However, robot arm 9 delivers substrate 32 through the portion of the production line that includes resin applying unit 5, when transferring substrate 32 to processing unit 6, as illustrated by the solid lines (arrows) that Owner adds to Figure 4 of the reference. As indicated by Requester, the claim language with respect to passing substrates through a “portion” is broader than passing substrates through a respective component or apparatus. Respondent Br. 4-5. Owner responds that the substrates do not travel along a “common line,” and do not exit from the “portions” at a “common location.” Rebuttal Br. 10-11. Owner’s arguments are not persuasive because, as we have indicated supra, the Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 14 claims do not require travel along a “common line,” however Owner might define the “line.” There is no requirement of a “common line” in the broadest reasonable interpretation of “in serial order,” but one substrate must proceed before the other -- as in Matsuda. Owner submits similar arguments that Matsuda does not disclose passing the substrates through a liquid crystal dispensing portion. App. Br. 21. However, Matsuda discloses serially passing the substrates through the portion of the production line that includes liquid crystal dropping unit 4, as shown in Owner’s annotated Figure 4 of the reference. Owner submits that the second substrate (32) of Matsuda does not enter into or pass through the liquid crystal dropping/resin applying unit 8. Rebuttal Br. 11; App. Br. 21. However, under the proper interpretation of the claims, a substrate passing through a production line component or apparatus (e.g., Matsuda unit 8) is not required. Owner’s Arguments Regarding Nonaka Owner submits that Nonaka does not teach substrates that follow “a common line.” E.g., Rebuttal Br. 15 (annotated Figure 1 of Nonaka). Apparently, Owner contends that the claims require that the substrates follow an identical path through the production line. We disagree. Further, Owner alleges that “the opposite-side glass substrate in Nonaka does not pass through the sealant coating device 68 [Fig. 1]” (emphasis added). App. Br. 25. But the claims do not require passing substrates through a “device.” Because the instant claims do not require the “common line” feature that is alleged to be missing from Nonaka, we are not persuaded of error in Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 15 the application of Nonaka in the § 103(a) rejections of the claims over Nonaka and Matsuda or Ishihara. Nor are we persuaded (App. Br. 27-28) that Matsuda contains any deficiency in the rejection over Nonaka and Matsuda. We reiterate that we are not persuaded that Matsuda fails to disclose passing the first and second substrates through a liquid crystal portion of the single production process line in serial order. Owner’s Arguments Regarding Taniguchi Owner argues that Taniguchi describes carrying substrates simultaneously (i.e., in parallel) for dispensing of liquid crystal material. App. Br. 37-38. However, the argument does not demonstrate error in the § 103(a) rejection over Nonaka and Taniguchi. In particular, the rejection relies on Nonaka, not Taniguchi, for teaching the passing of substrates “in serial order.” RAN 36. Owner’s Arguments Regarding Sasaki Owner argues that Sasaki does not teach or suggest passing both the first and second substrates through the liquid crystal dispensing portion. App. Br. 30. However, as noted by Requester (Respondent Br. 8), the rejection over Nonaka and Sasaki relies upon Sasaki to teach dispensing liquid crystal material onto a substrate, not the concept of passing both substrates through a liquid crystal dispensing portion. See RAN 30; reproduced in App. Br. at 29-30. Accordingly, Owner has not identified any error in the § 103(a) rejection over Nonaka and Sasaki. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 16 Owner’s Arguments Regarding Sakai Owner argues that Sakai does not teach or suggest that both the first and second substrates pass through a liquid crystal dispensing portion of the single production process line, because in Sakai the second substrate does not go through a sealing material coating portion or a liquid crystal dispensing portion. App. Br. 41. Owner argues, in addition, that Sakai does not teach or suggest passing the first and second substrates through the liquid crystal dispensing portion in serial order, because the substrates do not travel along a “common line” through the sealing material coating portion. Id. However, Owner’s remarks are not responsive to the § 103(a) rejection applied over Nonaka and Sakai. In particular, the Examiner finds that “Nonaka discloses all of the features of claim 1 except for the manner or equipment by which the liquid crystal is applied, or to which substrate the liquid crystal is applied, to make the LCD panel.” RAN 36. Owner responds to the § 103(a) rejection over Nonaka and Sakai in the Rebuttal Brief (at 22), but repeats the arguments with respect to Nonaka failing to teach passing substrates “along a common line.” As the proper interpretation of the claims does not require the feature alleged to be missing in Nonaka, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection over the combination of Nonaka and Sakai. Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 17 Summary/Conclusion We have considered the entirety of the record before us including all of Owner’s arguments in response to the rejections. We not persuaded of error in any rejection. We sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 2 and the § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 4, 9, and 10. DECISION The Examiner’s decision adverse to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e). AFFIRMED ak Appeal 2013-002126 Reexamination Control 95/000,507 & 90/009,588 Patent US 6,803,984 B2 18 Patent Owner: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 2 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Suite 700 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Third Party Requester: White & Case, LLP Patent Department 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036