Page 1 of 7
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/633,781 02/27/2015
30593 7590 10/15/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BonwonKOO
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.
2557SI-002297-US 6706
EXAMINER
AZAR!, SEPEHR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2018 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jcastellano@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Page 2 of 7
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BONWON KOO, DEUKSEOK CHUNG, HYUNJOON KIM,
SHANGHYEUN PARK, CHANGSOO LEE, and TAEWON JEONG 1
Appeal2018-001969
Application 14/633,781
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JASON J. CHUNG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-25. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an electro-chromic panel capable of
selectively making a transparent and a reflective area. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. An electro-chromic panel comprising:
1 According to Appellants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Claim 20 has been canceled. App. Br. 20.
Page 3 of 7
Appeal2018-001969
Application 14/633,781
a detection layer; and
an electro-chromic layer configured to switch an
operational mode of a selected area between a transmission mode
and a reflective mode according to a signal provided from the
detection layer.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination ofWassingbo 3
and Kuroki4 . Ans. 2-12. 5
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wassingbo, Kuroki, and Tam 6. Ans.
13.
Claims 12 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination ofWassingbo, Kuroki, and Nam 7. Ans.
13-15.
3 Wassingbo, US 2009/0262085 Al, published Oct. 22, 2009.
4 Kuroki, US 2013/0328780 Al, published Dec. 12, 2013.
5 The Answer includes claims 10 and 21 in the rejection heading. Ans. 2.
However, claims 10 and 21 are not included in the body of the rejection. Id.
at 2-11. The Answer subsequently states "[c]laims 10 and 21 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wassingbo." Id. at 11-12.
Because claims 10 and 21 depend from independent claims 6 and 1 7,
respectively, we interpret the Examiner's subsequent heading and rejection
(see id. at 11-12) to be a typographical error. Accordingly, we make the
appropriate corrections in our listing of the rejections by grouping the
rejections from pages 2-12 of the Answer together.
6 Tam, US 2008/0238871 Al, published Oct. 2, 2008.
7 Nam, 2013/0307801 Al, published Nov. 21, 2013.
2
Page 4 of 7
Appeal2018-001969
Application 14/633,781
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wassingbo, Kuroki, and Lee 8• Ans.
15-17.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Wassingbo, Kuroki, and Han. Ans. 17.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds W assingbo teaches switching between a
transparent mode and an opaque mode. Ans. 3, 18 (citing Wassingbo ,r,r 60-
61, 63, 69-71, Figs. 6A---6C). 9 In addition, the Examiner finds Kuroki
teaches switching between a transparent state and a reflective state. Ans. 3
(citing Kuroki ,r 38). The Examiner concludes since a reflective surface is a
type of opaque surface, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have combined W assingbo and Kuroki to provide a
reflective effect for Wassingbo' s non-active areas based on a simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Ans. 3--4.
8 Lee, US 2014/0062899 Al, published March 6, 2014.
9 The Examiner entered the claim amendments that incorporated the features
from dependent claim 20 into independent claims 1, 6, 13, and 17 in an
Advisory Action mailed February 16, 2017. The Examiner shifts their
theory of unpatentability by citing to Wassingbo' s Figures 6A-6C and
paragraph 63 for the first time in the Answer pertaining to claim 1.
Compare Final Act. 3, 9 with Ans. 18 (citing Wassingbo, Figs. 6A-6C,
,r 63). Accordingly, we conclude Appellant's arguments pertaining to the
combination being inoperative for its intended purpose (see Reply Br. 3--4)
are raised timely.
3