Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2021

2020004984 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021)

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