Ex Parte Apte et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2017

12408219 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017)

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. 12/408,219 03/20/2009 Raj B. Apte 20080305USNP-XER2062US01 8843 61962 7590 12/12/2017 FAY SHARPE LLP / XEROX - PARC 1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR THE HALLE BUILDING CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER BRYANT, MICHAEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/12/2017 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 ____________ Ex parte RAJ B. APTE, JENG PING LU, and JACKSON H. HO ____________ Appeal 2016-007725 Application 12/408,219 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated” is listed as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed February 9, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 1). 2 Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Brief filed August 8, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 2–4; Final Office Action entered January 28, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2–7; Examiner’s Answer entered June 6, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2–8. Appeal 2016-007725 Application 12/408,219 2 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a system and method for testing a current-actuated display (CAD) backplane using a resistive film pressed on the backplane and infra-red (IR) imaging to visualize and quantify the current drive of pixels (Specification, filed March 20, 2009, hereinafter “Spec.,” ¶ 25; Appeal Br., Claims App. (claims 1 and 10 )). In particular, the Appellants describe systems including suitable resistive materials (e.g., “sputtered or solution-deposited particulate ITO, PEDOT, Tungsten, Titanium, and various forms of Carbon”), which when subjected to certain conditions in which appropriate voltage levels are driven through contact pads associated with a conductive layer coated on the backplane, exhibit effects that may be analyzed using IR imaging (id. ¶¶ 31–35; Fig. 2). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 9), with key limitations emphasized, as follows: 1. A system for testing a current actuated display backplane having circuit elements disposed thereon, the system comprising: conductive connections to the circuit elements; a drive circuit to selectively drive the circuit elements through the conductive connections; a resistive layer pressed on the backplane to cover the circuit elements, the resistive layer being provided with an element to drive voltage to a certain level and having resistivity compatible with the circuit elements; and, an infrared camera to generate an infrared image of the resistive layer while the circuit elements are being driven to observe heating in the resistive layer. Appeal 2016-007725 Application 12/408,219 3 II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as follows: A. claims 1–3, 5, 8–10, 12, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Yamazaki et al.3 (hereinafter “Yamazaki”) in view of Trujillo et al.4 (hereinafter “Trujillo”); and B. claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 as unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Trujillo and Weng.5 (Ans. 2–8; Final Act. 2–7.) III. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Yamazaki describes a system and method for inspecting an electroluminescence (EL) display, wherein the system includes—in the Examiner’s words—“a pressed resistive layer 115, 406 (see one of inspection conductive film or gate insulating film) on a backplane to cover the circuit elements 104,” as required by claims 1 and 10 (Ans. 2–3 (citing Yamazaki ¶¶ 66–72, 161 and Fig. 10B)). According to the Examiner, Yamazaki’s gate insulating film 406 is a resistive layer that “absorbs residual heat from operating circuit elements 402–405 and thereby radiate absorbed heat” (id. at 3 (bolding added)). The Examiner finds that Yamazaki does not describe an IR camera, but relies on Trujillo’s teachings to conclude that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to use an IR camera in Yamazaki to detect defects in the display 3 US 2002/0044124 A1, published April 18, 2002. 4 US 7,474,115 B1, issued January 6, 2009. 5 US 2006/0152500 A1, published July 13, 2006. Appeal 2016-007725 Application 12/408,219 4 by observing “heating in the display circuitry” (id. (citing Trujillo, col. 2, ll. 8–24 and col. 3, ll. 4–30)). The Appellants argue, inter alia, that “Yamazaki shows a system where current is measured in a conductive layer” and that “heat [from a resistive layer] is not observed” (Appeal Br. 5). Regarding Trujillo, the Appellants argue that Trujillo teaches testing a completed display using a reverse bias and optionally heating the display with a heater, but does not disclose a resistive layer as specified in claim 1. The Appellants submit, therefore, that even if a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references, the resulting combination would not have included a “resistive layer pressed on the backplane,” as specified in the two independent claims on appeal—i.e., claims 1 and 10 (id. at 6). The Appellants urge that “neither Trujillo nor Yamazaki observes heating in the resistive layer as disclosed and claimed” (id. at 7). We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection is not well-founded. Yamazaki describes a system and a method for inspecting whether a pixel portion is able to operate normally before the EL display panel production is completed (Yamazaki ¶ 1). Yamazaki performs this inspection by measuring current flowing in the pixel electrode or in a conductive—not resistive—film 105, 115 (id. ¶ 29, Figs. 1–2). In another embodiment (Fig. 10B), Yamazaki teaches a gate insulating film 406, such as silicon oxynitride film, covering semiconductor layers 402–405 and disposed between a conductive film 407 and a glass substrate 400 (id. ¶¶ 161–162). Contrary to the Examiner’s position (Ans. 2, 7), Yamazaki does not indicate—nor did the Examiner provide a sufficient factual basis upon which to presume—that Yamazaki’s gate insulating film 406 or Appeal 2016-007725 Application 12/408,219 5 conductive film 105, 115 would inherently or necessarily be a “resistive layer” (emphasis added) that would generate heat that can be analyzed by Trujillo’s IR camera to permit a determination as to a pixel’s normal operation. Trujillo does not bridge the gap between Yamazaki and the Appellants’ claimed subject matter. The Examiner states that Trujillo “would inherently include additional heating of surrounding layers of the device (i.e., resistive heating)” (Ans. 7). Such a statement lacks evidentiary support. Trujillo teaches identifying a short or leakage current in a pixel in an organic electronic device display under bias (desirably a reverse bias of less than a predetermined threshold) using an IR camera (Trujillo, col. 2, ll. 8–14; col. 3, ll. 7–17). The Examiner, however, does not direct us to evidence that Trujillo discloses or would have suggested analyzing radiated heat from a resistive layer, or that Trujillo’s IR camera configuration would be suitable for detecting pixel defects by analyzing radiated heat from Yamazaki’s conductive layer or gate insulation film. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. IV. SUMMARY Rejections A and B are not sustained. Therefore, the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–16 is reversed. REVERSED