Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To assess the obviousness of US patent 11500496, we must consider whether a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have found the claimed invention, at the time of the invention, to be obvious in light of prior art combinations. This involves identifying relevant prior art, determining if all claim limitations are present in the prior art (either explicitly or inherently), and establishing a motivation to combine the prior art references with a reasonable expectation of success.

Independent Claim 1 outlines a display device with a display panel and a touch sensing unit. Key features include:

• A display panel with a base layer, circuit layer, organic light-emitting device (OLED) layer having red, green, and blue light-emitting areas of potentially different sizes, and a thin film encapsulation (TFE) layer (inorganic and organic layers).
• A touch sensing unit directly on the display panel, comprising:
  • A first conductive pattern directly on the display panel surface.
  • An insulating layer covering the first conductive pattern.
  • A second conductive pattern on the insulating layer, thicker than the first, with first and second touch sensor parts made of metal mesh lines defining mesh holes.
• Crucially, the light-emitting areas are located within these mesh holes, avoiding overlap with the metal mesh lines.
• The first conductive pattern includes electrically conductive second connection parts linking the second touch sensor parts.
• A conductive contact hole through the insulating layer connects the second connection parts and the second touch sensor parts.

Prior Art References:

The provided patent text for US11500496 lists "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" but does not explicitly detail specific prior art references that were cited during its prosecution. To conduct a thorough obviousness analysis, specific prior art documents (patents, publications, etc.) that disclose elements of Claim 1 would typically be identified. Without these specific prior art documents, a detailed combination analysis is limited.

However, based on the description within US11500496 itself regarding the conventional display device (FIG. 11 and its accompanying text), we can infer certain aspects of the existing prior art that the patent aims to improve upon.

Conventional Display Device (Implicit Prior Art from US11500496's Description):

US11500496 describes a "conventional display device 1000" that includes a display panel 100 and a touch sensing unit 200. This touch sensing unit 200 has a first conductive pattern 210, an insulating layer 220 covering it, and a second conductive pattern 230 on the insulating layer 220. In this conventional device, the thickness K1 of the first conductive pattern 210 is "substantially equal to or slightly different from" the thickness K2 of the second conductive pattern 230. Similarly, the thickness K1, the thickness K3 of the insulating layer 220, and K2 are "substantially equal to each other or slightly different from each other." This conventional design leads to a "step difference" in the insulating layer, causing cracks and potential electrical shorts between the first and second conductive patterns. [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.]

Motivation to Combine/Modify (Based on the Patent's Stated Problem):

The explicit problem addressed by US11500496 is the occurrence of cracks in the insulating layer of the touch sensing unit due to step differences caused by underlying conductive patterns, which can lead to short defects. [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.] The proposed solution is to make the first conductive pattern significantly thinner than the second conductive pattern and the insulating layer, thereby reducing the step difference and minimizing cracking. [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.]

Hypothetical Obviousness Argument (without specific prior art references):

If we consider the "conventional display device 1000" described in the patent as representative prior art, a hypothetical obviousness argument could be constructed as follows:

• Reference 1 (e.g., "Conventional Display Device 1000"): Discloses a display device with a display panel and a touch sensing unit comprising a first conductive pattern, an insulating layer covering it, and a second conductive pattern on the insulating layer. It further discloses that the first and second conductive patterns may have similar thicknesses, leading to step differences and cracks in the insulating layer. It's reasonable to assume such a device would also have an OLED layer with light-emitting areas and a TFE layer, as these are common components of display panels. It would also likely include touch sensor parts with mesh lines and mesh holes, as well as connection parts and contact holes, which are standard for touch sensing units. [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.]

• Motivation to Modify/Combine: A PHOSITA, faced with the known problem of cracking in the insulating layer and short circuits in the conventional display device 1000 due to the step difference caused by the conductive patterns, would be motivated to find a solution to reduce or eliminate these cracks. [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.]

• Combination: A PHOSITA would consider modifying the thicknesses of the conductive patterns to mitigate the step difference. Given the problem of cracking at the step difference, it would be an obvious design choice to reduce the height of the underlying features to create a smoother surface for subsequent layers. Specifically, making the first conductive pattern (TS-CP1) thinner than the insulating layer (TS-IL1) and the second conductive pattern (TS-CP2) would directly address the problem of the step difference. The patent itself highlights that "only the thickness D1 of the first conductive pattern TS-CP1 among the first conductive pattern TS-CP1, the first touch insulating layer TS-IL1, and the second conductive pattern TS-CP2 is set to be relatively thin... and thus the first touch insulating layer TS-IL1 may be prevented from being cracked, or the crack of the first touch insulating layer TS-IL1 may be reduced or minimized." [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.] This statement suggests that simply making the first conductive pattern thinner was the core inventive step, as it directly solves the identified problem.

• Expectation of Success: Reducing the thickness of the underlying conductive pattern would be expected to reduce the severity of the step difference, thereby reducing stress on the overlying insulating layer and consequently reducing cracks. This would be a predictable result for a PHOSITA.

Limitations not explicitly addressed by "Conventional Display Device 1000" but common knowledge:

While the detailed structure of the light-emitting areas within mesh holes is a specific aspect of Claim 1, the general concept of transparent conductive patterns (like mesh lines) in touch screens that avoid overlapping active display areas is a known design principle to maximize light transmission and display quality. Similarly, the use of varied-size RGB light-emitting areas in OLEDs is a common display technology.

Conclusion (without specific external prior art):

Based solely on the patent's own description of the "conventional display device 1000" and the problem it seeks to solve, the primary distinguishing feature of Claim 1—the relative thinness of the first conductive pattern compared to the second and the insulating layer to prevent cracking—appears to be a solution that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement to overcome a known problem with a predictable outcome.

To provide a stronger and more definitive obviousness analysis, specific prior art references that disclose these elements would be required. The "Prior art keywords" (layer, light emitting, display device, thin film, conductive pattern) indicate general areas of prior art but don't point to specific documents. [cite: The full patent text is provided in the prompt.] A search for the prosecution history of US11500496B2 would reveal the actual prior art cited by the examiner and the applicant, which would be essential for a robust obviousness determination. However, based on the provided search results from USPTO, accessing the full prosecution history to determine the cited prior art requires using the Patent Public Search tool.