NITTO DENKO CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2022

2021001563 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2022)

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. 16/216,274 12/11/2018 Katsunori Takada P160947US01 1258 38834 7590 02/14/2022 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP 8500 LEESBURG PIKE SUITE 7500 TYSONS, VA 22182 EXAMINER VONCH, JEFFREY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2022 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): patentmail@whda.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KATSUNORI TAKADA, NAOTAKA HIGUCHI, KOTA NAKAI, SHINOBU NAGANO, EIKO SUEFUSA, YOSHITSUGU KITAMURA, and KEISUKE KIMURA Appeal 2021-001563 Application 16/216,274 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 4, and 8-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nitto Denko Corporation. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2021-001563 Application 16/216,274 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a polarizing plate. Claim 3, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 3. A polarizing plate, comprising: a polarizer; and a protective film arranged on at least one side of the polarizer, wherein the polarizer has a thickness of 20 µm or less, wherein the polarizing plate has a dimensional change ratio of -0.2% or more in a transmission axis direction thereof; wherein the dimensional change ratio is measured by cutting the polarizing plate to 100 mm by 100 mm while bonded to a glass plate with a pressure-sensitive adhesive and an operation wherein the polarizing plate bonded to the glass plate is left to stand under an atmosphere at -40°C for 30 minutes and then left to stand under an atmosphere at 85°C for 30 minutes, is repeated 100 times, and the polarizing plate has one selected from the group consisting of a through-hole formed therein, a site having an outer edge forming a substantially V-shape that is convex inward in a surface direction, and the combination of the through-hole and the site. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Franklin US 2013/0328051 A1 Dec. 12, 2013 Kunai US 2016/0363699 A1 Dec. 15, 2016 Jeong US 2016/0370508 A1 Dec. 22, 2016 Saiki (machine translation) JP 2002236213 A Aug. 23, 2002 Ikuhara (machine translation) JP 2006243132 A Sept. 14, 2006 Tsukamura (machine translation) WO 2007108244 A1 Sept. 27, 2007 Han (machine translation) KR 20150087062 A Sept. 22, 2016 Appeal 2021-001563 Application 16/216,274 3 REJECTIONS Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 3, 4, 8-13 103 Han, Saiki, Ikuhara, (Franklin or Tsukamura) 3, 4, 8-13 103 Jeong, Saiki, Ikuhara, (Franklin or Tsukamura) 3, 4, 8-13 103 Kunai, Saiki, Ikuhara, (Franklin or Tsukamura) OPINION The Appellant provides a substantive argument with respect to only the independent claims (3 and 4) (Appeal Br. 7-16). We therefore limit our discussion to those claims. The dependent claims stand or fall with the independent claim from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Claims 3 and 4 require that “the polarizing plate has one selected from the group consisting of a through-hole formed therein, a site having an outer edge forming a substantially V-shape that is convex inward in a surface direction, and the combination of the through-hole and the site.” Han discloses a polarizing plate that has a protective film on one or both of its surfaces and is useful in a liquid crystal display (Abstract; p. 10).2 Jeong discloses a polarizing plate (100) that has a polarizer (110) with a protective layer (120) on one of its sides and is useful in a liquid crystal display (¶¶ 24, 101; Fig. 1). Kunai discloses a polarizing plate (2) that comprises a protective film (10) and a protective layer (25), and is useful in a liquid crystal display (¶¶ 2, 139; Fig. 7). 2 The Han and Tsukamura page numbers herein have been provided by the Board. Appeal 2021-001563 Application 16/216,274 4 Franklin discloses an electronic device comprising a liquid crystal display with a polarizing layer having a notch or hole (48) through which structures such as sensors, cameras, acoustic components, buttons, flexible printed circuit cables, wire bonding wires, and housing structures may be received (¶¶ 4, 6, 29, 30, 69; Figs. 16-19). Tsukamura discloses a liquid crystal display panel (1) comprising a non-rectangular (illustrated as circular) polarizing plate (2) having V-shaped recesses (8, 9) (Abstract; p. 12; Fig. 8). The Appellant argues that Hans, Jeong, and Kunai have no button or similar structural component that passes through the polarizing plate as in Franklin, and have no circular polarizing plate as in Tsukamura, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to apply Franklin’s or Tsukamura’s deformed portions to Hans’s, Jeong’s, or Kunai’s polarizing plate (Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 6, 10). 3 3 The Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that 1) “[n]ot all plates are suitable for all display applications, and it is simple [sic] not sufficient to allege that any and all plates are interchangeable without some teaching to that affect [sic],” 2) Hans, Jeong, and Kunai would not have suggested a polarizing plate having a dimensional change ratio of -0.2% or more in a transmission axis direction thereof, and 3) the claimed polarizing plate provides unexpected results (Reply Br. 7-8, 10-11). We do not consider those arguments because they are untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2011) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”). Appeal 2021-001563 Application 16/216,274 5 As pointed out above, Franklin’s and Tsukamura’s polarizing plates are used in liquid crystal displays, and Hans, Jeong, and Kunai disclose protective layer-covered polarizing plates that are useful in liquid crystal displays. One of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have used Hans’s, Jeong’s, or Kunai’s protective layer-covered polarizing plate material when making Franklin’s polarizing plate having a notch or hole or Tsukamura’s polarizing plate having V-shaped recesses. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 3, 4, 8-13 103 Han, Saiki, Ikuhara, (Franklin or Tsukamura) 3, 4, 8- 13 3, 4, 8-13 103 Jeong, Saiki, Ikuhara, (Franklin or Tsukamura) 3, 4, 8- 13 3, 4, 8-13 103 Kunai, Saiki, Ikuhara, (Franklin or Tsukamura) 3, 4, 8- 13 Overall Outcome 3, 4, 8- 13 Appeal 2021-001563 Application 16/216,274 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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