`
`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
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`11/965,940
`
`12/28/2007
`
`Makiko Sugibayashi
`
`1497.48274X00
`
`4318
`
`20457
`
`7590
`
`04/03/2013
`
`ANTONELLLTERRY,STOUT&KRAUS,LLP
`1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
`SUITE 1800
`ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873
`
`CHIEM, DINH D
`
`28 83
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/03/2013
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`11/965,940
`
`Examiner
`ERIN CHIEM
`
`SUGIBAYASHI ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`2883
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)|Zl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 30 August 2012.
`
`2a)I:l This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IZ| This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IXI Claim(s) 1-11 13-17and21-35is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Zl Claim(s) 1- 11 13- 1721 -28 30 and 32-35is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`
`9)I:l Claim((s)
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`htt
`:/'/www.us to. ovI’Watents/init events/mnh/inq'exls or send an inquiry to PPeredback usntm 0v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|:| The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)|:l accepted or b)I:l objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)|:l All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)|:l None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _
`
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) I] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) I] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OS)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`4) D Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20130325
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
`
`37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
`
`eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR l.l7(e)
`
`has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
`
`37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 2, 2012 has been entered. Claims 1—11,
`
`13—17, 21—28, 30, 32—35 are pending.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 1—11, 13, 15, 25—27 and 32—35 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable Tasaki et al. (US 2002/0154254 A1, "Tasaki”) in view of Handschy (US 5347378)
`
`and in further view of Niiyama et al. (US 2005/0083465 A1, “Niiyama”).
`
`Regarding claims 1—11 and 35 Tasaki discloses a liquid crystal display device in which
`
`are disposed a backlight (Tasaki implicitly discloses the backlight since the letters 'ABC’ in Fig.
`
`2 are lit), a liquid crystal layer (within liquid crystal panel 1), the liquid crystal display device
`
`comprising: a transparent front plate 2' disposed in front of a front surface of the liquid crystal
`
`panel 1, a transparent organic medium layer 3 surrounded by a bank 5 having a closed loop
`
`shaped wall without any sealed opening there through and without any discontinuity at least at an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`inner wall surface of the continuous closed loop shaped wall, the transparent organic medium
`
`layer; and an antiglare layer disposed in front of a front surface of the front plate (Table 3,
`
`example D).
`
`However, Tasaki does not teach the liquid crystal display specific components:
`
`0
`
`o
`
`a polarizing plate disposed in front of a front surface of the backlight
`
`a liquid crystal panel disposed in front of a front surface of the polarizing plate
`
`and having electrodes,
`
`0
`
`a liquid crystal layer, an alignment layer and a color filter held between a pair of
`
`glass substrates;
`
`0
`
`another polarizing plate disposed in front of the front surface of the liquid crystal
`
`panel;
`
`0
`
`o
`
`o
`
`the liquid crystal display device further comprises a signal line drive circuit, and
`
`a scanning line circuit arranged to drive the liquid crystal panel, and
`
`a driver integrated circuit disposed in a lower portion of the liquid crystal panel to
`
`control operation of the signal line drive circuit and the scanning drive circuit.
`
`Handschy teaches a liquid crystal display device (Fig. 4c) comprising a polarizing plate
`
`438 disposed in front of a front surface of the backlight, a liquid crystal panel 434 disposed in
`
`front of a front surface of the polarizing plate and having electrodes 502. The liquid crystal
`
`panel further comprises a liquid crystal layer 506, an alignment layer 504 and a color filter held
`
`between a pair of glass substrates 500. The liquid crystal display device further includes another
`
`polarizing plate 440 disposed in front of the front surface of the liquid crystal panel. Regarding
`
`the integrated circuit for driving the display device, Handschy teaches in Fig. l a driving means
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`102 which implicitly teaches the signal lines (see claim 1) and the scanning lines (see symbolic
`
`lines drawn from the driving means 102 to the LC panels in Fig. 1). Furthermore, the examiner
`
`notes, the figures disclosed by Handschy are symbolic wherein practice the ICs are well known
`
`to be provided on a circuit board embedded below/behind the liquid crystal panel for
`
`compactness.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the liquid
`
`crystal display having the plurality of polarizers arranged as disclosed by Handschy would be
`
`necessary to have the necessary components (e.g., driving circuitry, alignment layer, polarizing
`
`plates etc.) for the liquid crystal panel to operate and function as a liquid crystal display device.
`
`Handschy teaches one would be motivated to arrange plurality of polarizers such as the two
`
`stages birefringent structure of Fig. 4C in order to improve off axis viewing angle of the device
`
`(Claim 20).
`
`However, Tasaki in view of Handschy do not teach, the bank being disposed at a position
`
`at least in front of a peripheral portion of the front surface of the liquid crystal panel within outer
`
`dimensions of the liquid crystal panel.
`
`Niiyama teaches the bank 510 is disposed in front of a peripheral portion of the front
`
`surface of the liquid crystal panel 230 within outer dimensions of the liquid crystal panel. The
`
`transparent organic medium layer 250 has an outer shape adjoining and conforming to an inner
`
`shape of the closed loop shaped wall of the bank 510 (Fig. 8B). The examiner notes, injection
`
`port and evacuating ports are provided in the side of the bank 510. However, after the liquid
`
`resin has been injected, the ports are sealed (Para [0089]). Thusly, the examiner considers the
`
`bank to have “closed loop shaped wall.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`
`to provide a transparent protective medium within the peripheral portion of the liquid crystal
`
`panel according to the disclosure of Niiyama to protect multiple liquid crystal panels within a
`
`single transparent front plate. One would be motivated provide protective barrier for multiple
`
`liquid crystal panels in commercial display devices such as those at the airport for providing
`
`different information on each display (e. g., departure and arrival information). Moreover, the
`
`multiple displays are grouped and protected by a single front plate, which would reduce the
`
`manufacturing cost of the entire display system.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Tasaki discloses the transparent organic medium is 2 mm. (‘J[
`
`[0036]).
`
`Regarding claim 15, Tasaki implicitly discloses the bank 5 contains a compound capable
`
`of absorbing light in the visible range because the bank 5 is the housing for the liquid crystal
`
`display device. Tasaki teaches the liquid crystal display device is known to be mounted in a
`
`portable game device or mobile phone. The examiner notes, with the exception of the liquid
`
`crystal display panel opening in the viewing area and other openings for LED or light indicators,
`
`portable game device and mobile phone are known to be of an opaque material wherein light
`
`from the liquid crystal display panel emitting in the side directions would be absorbed by the
`
`bank 5 of Tasaki device.
`
`Regarding claim 25, the device disclosed by Tasaki in view of Handschy disclose the
`
`liquid crystal panel (includes the backlight plate, and the two polarizing plates are held in a
`
`housing (Tasaki: 9b and 10).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`Regarding claim 26, the device disclosed by Tasaki in view of Handschy disclose the
`
`transparent organic medium layer 3 which is surrounded by the bank 5 and the front plate 2 are
`
`held in a housing (Tasaki: 9b and 10).
`
`Regarding claim 27, Tasaki discloses the hardness of the transparent organic medium
`
`layer 3 in Table 1 wherein the exemplary silicone material having a hardness ranging from 10 to
`
`30.
`
`Regarding claim 32, Tasaki discloses the liquid crystal display panel is mounted in
`
`portable devices such as portable game consoles and cellular phones. The examiner notes that it
`
`is well known that portable game consoles are constructed of polycarbonate resins which are
`
`photocurable resins. Therefore, the examiner considers Tasaki implicitly discloses bank 5 is
`
`formed of photocurable resins.
`
`Regarding claim 33, Tasaki discloses a liquid crystal panel is mounted in the main body 5
`
`having an opening allowing the viewing region to display through the opening. Thus, the
`
`examiner considers Tasaki to disclose the bank does not cover a display portion of the liquid
`
`crystal panel.
`
`Regarding claim 34, Tasaki discloses the transparent organic medium is 2 mm (‘J[
`
`[0036]), however, Tasaki does not explicitly disclose the bank thickness is between 0.1 mm to
`
`less than 1 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to experiment with a thinner transparent organic medium since the claimed
`
`ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected
`
`them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. ofAmerica v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to further decrease the liquid crystal
`
`display size to be used in portable devices.
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view of
`
`Handschy in further view of Niiyama, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`Woodgate et al. (US 6,055,103, “Woodgate”).
`
`Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama teach the invention of claim
`
`1, however, Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama do not discloses index
`
`matching transparent organic medium bank layer having index matching with the front plate to
`
`be approximately +/—0.2.
`
`Woodgate teaches organic material such as epoxy resins allows for index matching (Col.
`
`7, lines 43—53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to match the refractive index as closely as possible to reduce optical loss
`
`between the optical layers such as those disclosed by Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further
`
`view of Niiyama. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
`
`the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
`
`In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2131.03 111.
`
`Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view
`
`of Handschy and Niiyama and in further view of Cok et al. (US 2006/0186802 A1, “Cok”).
`
`Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama teach the invention of claim
`
`1, however, Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama do not disclose the
`
`distance from the color filter surface to the antiglare layer surface satisfies the expression 2.15 L.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`Cok discloses the general condition for placing the antiglare coating over the display
`
`comprising of color filters in addition to optimizing layer thicknesses to yield maximum light
`
`transmission (‘J[ [0056]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`arrange the antiglare layer at various distance from the color filter at an optimal range to achieve
`
`better image quality with less blur since this distance variance also depends on the pixel size of
`
`the liquid crystal panel.
`
`Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tasaki
`
`in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama as applied to claim1 above, and further in
`
`view of Kaneki et al. (US 2004/0252097 A1, “Kaneki”).
`
`Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama teach the invention of claim
`
`1, however, Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama do not teach the blur
`
`width of the liquid crystal display device with respect to the pixel size as expressed in claims 21
`
`and 22.
`
`Kaneki teaches the general condition wherein the motion picture quality improves as the
`
`blurred edge width is narrow and the motion picture quality degrades as the blurred edge width is
`
`greater than the liquid crystal panel (pixel size) (‘J[ [0093]). It would have been obvious to one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to experiment with the blurred
`
`edge width size with respect to the pixel size to achieve a better motion picture quality. It has
`
`been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
`
`the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ
`
`233. See MPEP 2131.03 111.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`Claims 23—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tasaki in
`
`view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama and in further view of Namioka (JP 2000—
`
`314875 A, “Namioka”).
`
`Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama teach the invention of claim
`
`1, however Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama do not explicitly disclose
`
`the relationship: given L221 such that 41 < L-(H/D) < 200, as recited in claims 23 and 24.
`
`Namioka discloses the general condition where in the pixel pitch ranging between 10—100
`
`microns and the haze is about 3—50% (Novelty) for the purpose of improving visibility.
`
`It
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the antiglare layer at
`
`various distances from the color filter and fine tuning the variables (e. g., haze H and pixel size
`
`D) to achieve at an optimal range between 41 to 200 for reducing glare and increasing visibility.
`
`It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
`
`discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,
`
`105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2131.03 111.
`
`Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view of
`
`Handschy and in further view of Niiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`Ohtani et al. (US 2007/0236631 A1, “Ohtani”).
`
`Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama teach the invention of claim
`
`1, however, Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama do not disclose the
`
`transparent organic medium layer has an angle of contact with water of 20 degrees.
`
`Ohtani discloses a transparent substrate in an LCD device having the contact angle to
`
`water is preferably 20 to 50 degrees (‘J[ [0327]). It would have been obvious to one having
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`ordinary skill in the art to recognize the contact angle disclosed by Ohtani is modifiable to the
`
`transparent organic medium layer taught by Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of
`
`Niiyama. One would be motivated to provide a layer having sufficient wettability to improve
`
`adhesion of the polarizer (Para [0327]).
`
`Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view of
`
`Handschy and in further view of Niiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`Hiuga (JP-2000284270— A).
`
`Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama teach the invention of claim
`
`1. However, Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama do not disclose the
`
`invention of claim 30.
`
`Hiuga teaches the polarizing plate 20 and the transparent elastic body is larger than the
`
`peripheral area of the liquid crystal panel 10 (Solution). It would have been obvious to one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the teaching by Hiuga would be modifiable to the
`
`prior arts of Tasaki in view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama since Hiuga clearly
`
`teaches the motivation is to prevent cracks or deformation of a substrate when the liquid crystal
`
`display device is assembled or used (Abstract).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on August 2, 2012 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`In response to applicant's argument (Remarks, page 20, second paragraph) that the
`
`examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be
`
`recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page ll
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within
`
`the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include
`
`knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In
`
`re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA l97l).
`
`Applicant argues the bank 5 in Taskai's teaching is not a “bank” as recited in the claims.
`
`As currently amended, the claims do not preclude the examiner from considering the
`
`housing wall of Tasaki’s invention to be the same as the “bank” in applicant’s invention.
`
`Applicant argues the Patent to Handschy predates the invention of Tasaki and Tasaki
`
`does not include the teaching of Handschy, then “Tasaki may be considered to have rejected the
`
`utilization of the features of Handschy.”
`
`The examiner provided the prior art of Handschy to teach well—known internal operating
`
`structures of a liquid crystal display. In accordance to 35 U.S.C. 112 first and second paragraph,
`
`Tasaki is not required to disclose well—known features to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of invention to fully enable Tasaki claimed invention. As noted by Tasaki in the Field
`
`of Invention, Tasaki’s invention is related to a liquid crystal display device mounted in a portable
`
`game device or a mobile phone or a personal computer or a television screen. Since applicant
`
`has yet provided evidence to the contrary, the examiner considers the features of the internal
`
`operating structure as disclosed by Handschy would be compatible to the liquid crystal display
`
`device for mounting in the various packages, as noted above.
`
`Applicant further argues the amendment overcomes the combined teaching of Tasaki in
`
`view of Handschy and in further view of Niiyama. Specifically, the amendment overcomes the
`
`discontinuities in Niiyama’s bank due to the injection ports and air evacuation port.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/965,940
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2883
`
`The examiner respectfully notes, Tasaki’s bank 5 is fially continuous without having any
`
`discontinuity, which meets the amended claim amendments. However, as evidenced by the
`
`continuous bank of Tasaki and discontinuous bank of Niiyama, the functionality and
`
`performance of the protective front plate is not altered or reduced since the discontinuities in the
`
`Tasaki bank is closed after the injection process.
`
`Contact Information
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ERIN CHIEM whose telephone number is (571)272—3102. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on Monday — Thursday 9AM — 5PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Mark Robinson can be reached on (571) 272—2319. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/E. C./
`
`/Mark A. Robinson/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2883
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2883
`
`