Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2018

14579873 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/579,873 12/22/2014 58027 7590 09/27/2018 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC 1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR HoonsikKIM 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P5865USOO 8641 EXAMINER SWANSON, WALTER H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2823 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 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): PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HOONSIK KIM, DONGWOO SEO, IN SEO KEE, and TAEHYEOG JUNG Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 20, and 21 of Application 14/579,873 under 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 102 and 103. Final Act. (Jan. 11, 2017) 2-11. Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. 1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., which is also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 BACKGROUND The present application generally relates to a flexible display device that includes a flexible display panel, a flexible outer member, and a stress control member disposed between the flexible display panel and the flexible outer member. Spec. ,r 10. The stress control member is configured to define neutral planes in the flexible display panel and the flexible outer member when the flexible display device is bent. Id. Claims 1 and 8 illustrate the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below: 1. A flexible display device, comprising: a flexible display panel; a flexible outer member disposed on the flexible display panel; and a stress control member, disposed between the flexible display panel and the flexible outer member, for physically coupling the flexible display panel to the flexible outer member and defining a first neutral plane and a second neutral plane in the flexible display panel and the flexible outer member, respectively, when the flexible display device is bent, wherein the stress control member comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet. 8. The flexible display device of claim 1, wherein the stress control member is configured to have a maximum shear strain of from about 150% to about 360% at a bent portion when the flexible display device is bent. Appeal Br. 16, 17 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) or (2) as anticipated by Bums,2 or in the alternative, obvious over Bums. Final Act. 2-10. 2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Bums in view ofWatanabe. 3 Id. at 10-11. 3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Bums in view of Kim. 4 Id. at 11. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 as anticipated by and/or obvious over Bums. In support of the rejection, the Examiner found that Bums' flexible backplane 102 satisfies the "stress control member" limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. Appellant argues that Bums' flexible backplane does not teach such limitation. Appeal Br. 9-10. 2 US 2010/0295812 Al, published Nov. 25, 2010. 3 WO 2013/161868 Al, published Oct 31, 2013 (US 2015/0103268 Al, published Apr. 16, 2015, cited as English language counterpart). 4 US 2015/0053061 Al, published Feb. 26, 2015. 3 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 Claim 1 Bums teaches a flexible touchscreen display as depicted below. 101 } 102, 102b 10$ Figure 2 "illustrates a device configuration for a resistive touch screen structure which incorporates a display media 101, laminated over a flexible backplane 102." Bums ,r 37. Bums further teaches that "[t]he backplane incorporates a flexible substrate 102b as is shown in FIG. 2 .... The display media 101 and display backplane 102 are then laminated over a resistive touch screen 103 by utilising a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA)." Id. First, Appellant argues the backplane taught by Bums cannot "physically couple" members. Appeal Br. 9--10. More specifically, Appellant asserts that Bums' display "is fabricated using an active matrix driving arrangement. As such, unlike the Examiner's interpretation, the backplane 102 cannot physically couple members but rather is an element for driving a display that requires accurate positioning of elements." Id. 4 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 (internal citation omitted). Appellant does not offer any proposed construction of "physically couple." Id. In regard to the physical arrangement of the three layers, Bums teaches as follows: The flexible display medium is brought in contact with the flexible backplane either through direct deposition of a display active layer ... or through lamination with a display medium . . . . The display comprising the flexible backplane and the flexible display medium is laminated on top of a resistive touch screen sensor. Bums ,r 25. The foregoing passages of Bums indicate that the backplane 102 physically combines the display media 101 and resistive touchscreen 103 of Bums. See also id. ,r 37 and Fig. 2. Absent any further argument or a proposed narrower claim construction, Appellant has failed to show error in this regard. Second, Appellant argues that Bums does not teach "a stress control member ... defining a first neutral plane and a second neutral plane in the flexible display panel and the flexible outer member, respectively," as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. Evaluation of the foregoing limitation requires consideration of the term "neutral plane." When a flexible member is bent so as to be curved, there is a compressive stress on the interior of the curve and a tensile stress on the exterior of the curve. See Spec. i"fi"f 11, 84--86. Thus, in Figure 7 A, 5 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 reproduced below, the point marked as SA4 would be subject to tensile stress and SAI would be subject to compressive stress. Id. ,r 96. Figure 7 A "is a side view showing a display device including members of which their stresses are coupled to each other when the display apparatus is bent." Id. ,r 91. Intermediate the points of tensile and compressive stress, there is an imaginary curved plane defined by points where strains are substantially zero. Id. ,r 93. This is referred to as the "neutral plane." Id. In the figure above this is marked by a dashed line designated "SNPI ." In Figure 7 A, the "adhesive member AM-S 1 physically couples the display panel DP-S 1 to the outer member OSM-Sl" such that "[w]hen the display device DD-SI is bent, a stress of the display panel DP-S 1 is coupled to a stress of the outer member OSM-SI by the adhesive member AM-S 1. Thus, one neutral plane SNPl is formed in the display device DD-SI when the display device DD-SI is bent." Id. (emphasis added). If, however, the intermediate adhesive member "decouples" the stress of a top layer from a lower layer (or vice versa), two neutral planes are formed. Id. ,r 104. This situation is shown in the figure below. 6 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 â€¢ AN? A2 .A4 i A::!/ n('Â·Â· ~ CÂ· ,,_,â€¢...;.. ~ , .. .J ' Afrl A,:. ~p l ~~_;_, t,~, 1 Â·Â· . ' Â·::..:.;;.-:: ~~ I Figure 9A "is a cross-sectional view showing a display device." Id. ,r 107. In regard to Figure 9, the Specification teaches that When the display device DD is bent, the stress control member AM partially decouples a stress of the display panel DP and a stress of the outer member OSM from each other. Neutral planes NPl and NP2 are defined in the display panel DP and the outer member OSM, respectively, when the display device DD is bent. Id. ,r 108. This latter arrangement is required by the claims at issue. In finding that Bums teaches the claimed neutral planes, the Examiner determined that "the stress control member (102) comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet." Final Act. 3 (citing Bums ,r,r 20 and 37). This is consistent with claim 1 which requires that "the stress control member comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner further determined as follows: Consistent with intrinsic evidence, Bums' stress control member 102 comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet. The claimed invention's pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet may include at least one of a polymer, a cross-linking agent, and a resin. The polymer may include at least one of acrylic polymers, silicon-based polymers, and urethane-based polymers. Bums explicitly teaches that stress control member 102 may be made from a thin layer of polyimide (PI) or more 7 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 preferably, a polymer film such as polyethyleneterephtalate (PET) or polyethylenenaphtalene (PEN). Answer 6. It is reasonable to infer that the pressure sensitive adhesive of Bums would act in a manner similar to the pressure sensitive adhesive of the claims. Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's reasoning in this regard. Appellant states that "[c]laims 2-5, 8 and 9 stand together with claim 1 based on dependency." Appeal Br. 10. As we have not found Appellant's arguments regarding claim 1 to be persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown error with regard to its dependent claims on the foregoing basis. Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the stress control member is configured to have a maximum shear strain of from about 150% to about 360% at a bent portion when the flexible display device is bent." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner determined that Bums teaches such limitation. In making such determination, the Examiner stated that "[t]he Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by prior art reference Bums" but that "the claimed effects and physical properties would implicitly be achieved by [a] device with all of the claimed structure." Final Act. 6. The Examiner further determined that to traverse such determination "evidence would need to be presented to support applicants' position." Id. "[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of 8 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Such a burden-shifting framework is fair because of "the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Here, the Examiner showed a sound basis for believing Bums' pressure sensitive adhesive would be similar to the pressure sensitive adhesive of the claims. Thus, the burden was properly shifted to the applicant to show that the shear strain of Bums differs from the claimed range. Appellant does not present factual evidence in response. Rather, Appellant presents legal argument suggesting that the claimed range requires high viscosity and high elasticity not taught by Bums. Answer 5. This is insufficient to rebut the prima facie case. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's determination in this regard. Claims 11-14, 16-18 and 20 The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 17 as anticipated by, or obvious over, Bums. Final Act. 6-7. Appellant argues that such rejection is in error for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 11-13. Further, Appellant states that "[c]laims 12-14 and 16 stand together with claim 11 based on dependency," id. at 12, and"[ c ]laims 18 and 20 stand together with claim 17 based on dependency," id. As we have not found Appellant's arguments regarding claim 1 persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown error with regard to the rejection of the foregoing claims. 9 Appeal 2018-001753 Application 14/579,873 Rejections 2 and 3. The Examiner rejected claim 6 as obvious over Bums in view of Watanabe. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner further rejected claim 21 as obvious over Bums in view of Kim. Id. at 11. Appellant argues that such rejections are in error for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13-14. As we have not found such arguments persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown error with regard to the rejection of claims 6 and 21. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, and by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer, we determine that the rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 20, and 21 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10