Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 20212020004984 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/824,177 11/28/2017 Chul Joon HEO 15639-000345-US 6501 30593 7590 12/29/2021 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER WALL, VINCENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com jcastellano@hdp.com jhill@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHUL JOON HEO, RYUICHI SATOH, KYUNG BAE PARK, YEON-HEE KIM, TAKKYUN RO, TAKAO MOTOYAMA, and SE HYUCK PARK Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 Technology Center 2800 Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10–15, and 18–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a molded semiconductor package and related methods. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a plurality of pixel electrodes; an active layer on the plurality of pixel electrodes; an opposed electrode on the active layer; a first encapsulation film on the opposed electrode; and a second encapsulation film on the first encapsulation film, wherein the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film have a common planar shape, such that the first encapsulation film covers an upper surface of the opposed electrode and exposes an outer sidewall of the opposed electrode, such that the outer sidewall of the first encapsulation film and the outer sidewall of the opposed electrode are substantially coplanar, wherein the second encapsulation film covers an upper surface of the first encapsulation film, covers entire side surfaces of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film, and covers the exposed and substantially coplanar outer sidewalls of the first encapsulation film and the opposed electrode, wherein the active layer has a shape that is different from the common planar shape of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film, and the opposed electrode on the active layer covers an entirety of an upper surface of the active layer and an entirety of outer sidewalls of the active layer. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Kim US 2013/0320309 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 3 Name Reference Date Leem US 2014/0070189 A1 Mar. 13, 2014 Hamano US 2014/0138522 A1 May 22, 2014 Joei US 2016/0372520 A1 Dec. 22, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 2, 5–7, 10–15, 18–20 103 Leem, Joei, Hamano 3, 4 103 Leem, Joei, Hamano, Kim OPINION Obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10–15, 18–20 Appellant only presents arguments for claim 1 and does not separately argue the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5–7, 10–15, and 18–20. Appeal Br. 10–20. Our discussion, therefore, focuses on claim 1 as representative for disposition of the rejection. The Examiner finds that Leem teaches a plurality of pixel electrodes (10); an active layer (30) on the plurality of electrodes; and an opposed electrode (20) on the active layer and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the active layer. Final Act. 2 (citing Leem Fig. 5E). As to the claimed “first encapsulation film,” the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would replace Leem’s first encapsulation film 90 with the first and second film (18 and 19) of Joei, because one of Joei’s films would act as a protective film to prevent damage to the underlying structure, and the other film can act as a ultraviolet absorption film which prevents ultraviolet light from entering the device thereby reducing the damage to the organic layer. Id. at 3–4 (citing Leem ¶¶ 11–12). The Examiner further finds Leem teaches that first encapsulation film (90) is on the opposed electrode, and the Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 4 opposed electrode and first encapsulation film have a common planar shape. Id. at 2 (citing Leem Fig. 5E). The Examiner finds that Leem does not teach: a second encapsulation film on the first encapsulation film, such that the first encapsulation film covers an upper surface of the opposed electrode and exposes an outer sidewall of the opposed electrode, such that the outer sidewall of the first encapsulation film and the outer sidewall of the opposed electrode are substantially coplanar, wherein the second encapsulation film covers an upper surface of the first encapsulation film, covers entire side surfaces of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film, and covers the exposed and substantially coplanar outer sidewalls of the first encapsulation film and the opposed electrode, wherein the active layer has a shape that is different from the common planar shape of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film, and the opposed electrode on the active layer covers an entirety of an upper surface of the active layer and an entirety of outer sidewalls of the active layer. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Joei teaches a second encapsulation film (19) on the first encapsulation film (18), and the subsequent claim limitations relating to the first and second encapsulation films and opposed electrode. Final Act 3–4. The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Leem and Joei does not expressly teach an active layer that “has a shape different from the common planar shape of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film” or that “the opposed electrode on the active layer covers an entirety of an upper surface of the active layer and an entirety of outer sidewalls of the active layer” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5. The Examiner Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 5 further acknowledges that Joei teaches an active layer and opposed electrode having the same common shape. Id. The Examiner finds that Hamano teaches the shape of its active layer 107 and of opposed electrode 108 “can be changed such that the opposed electrode covers the entire surface of the active layer and the side surfaces, or outer sidewalls of the active layer.” Final Act. 5 (citing Hamano Fig. 6). The Examiner further finds that the shape limitations of claim 1 do not provide “unexpected results to the operation of the device nor do they appear to be critical to the device” because Hamano shows that change in shape of the opposed electrode in relation to the active layer does not affect the operation of the device. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner finds that, “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of Hamano to modify the shape of the opposed electrode to be different from the active layer. Id. (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)). Appellant argues that, according to its Specification, the shapes of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film protect the active layer, and thus affect the operation of the device because a degraded active layer would be less effective. Appeal Br. 16 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 93, 113–14). Appellant further argues “whether the ‘shape affects the operation of the device’” is not the standard for determining obviousness nor the standard set forth in In re Dailey, and that the Examiner further erred by applying a standard that shape must be “critical to the device” to support patentability. Id. at 16–18. Appellant argues that the test in In re Dailey is “whether the change to a shape, as disclosed by secondary references, is ‘a mere matter of choice,’” and that the claimed shape of its device “is not merely a matter of Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 6 choice because it serves a solution not disclosed in Leem, Joei, or Hamano (e.g., a protective barrier in a device capable of high integration without degraded active layer).” Id. at 18. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that the limitation “the active layer has a shape that is different from the common planar shape of the opposed electrode and the first encapsulation film” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on a combination of Leem, Joei, and Hamano. The Examiner relies on Hamano as teaching “the shape of the active layer 107, and the shape of the opposed electrode 108 need not be the shape described by Joei” and that “change in shape does not affect the operation of the device,” (Final Act. 5–6) but does not explain either how Hamano teaches this or why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known this. The Examiner does not point to any particular teaching or suggestion from Hamano to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the shape of Joei’s active layer (which has the same common planar shape) to be different from the shape of the opposed electrode. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). Further, the Examiner’s application of In re Dailey was based on finding that Appellant had not shown that shape of the elements would affect operation of the device. See Ans. 9–10. The Examiner overlooked, however, Appellant’s showing that the shape of the opposed electrode and first encapsulation layer protect the active layer, and thus affect operation of the device by preventing degradation of the active layer. Spec. ¶¶ 93, 113– Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 7 14. Therefore, the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that shape of the active layer was a mere matter of choice under the rationale of In re Dailey. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10–15, 18– 20. Obviousness of claims 3 and 4 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further requires that the distance between one edge of the opposed electrode and one edge of the active layer is about 1 µm to about 100 µm. Appeal Br. 24. Claim 4 likewise depends from claim 2 and further requires that the opposed electrode covers the upper surface of the active layer and a plurality of side surfaces of the active layer. Id. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 and 4 do not remedy the deficiencies in the obviousness rejection of claim 1 as discussed above. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 3 and 4. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2020-004984 Application 15/824,177 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–7, 10–15, 18– 20 103 Leem, Joei, Hamano 1, 2, 5–7, 10–15, 18– 20 3,4 103 Leem, Joei, Hamano, Kim 3, 4 Overall Outcome 1–7, 10–15, 18–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation