Ex Parte 5926237 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2012

90008143 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
90/008,143 08/03/2006 5926237 8733.059.61 6948
30827 7590 07/20/2012
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
CHOI, WOO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2012 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
Appellant and Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from a final
rejection of claims 1-5, 45-56, 58, 60-62, and 64. Claims 6-44, 57, 59, 63,
and 65 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and
306. This case is related to Appeal 2011-004241 (Reexamination Control
90/008,146), Appeal 2010-010802 (Reexamination Control 90/008,145), and
Appeal 2011-003430 (Reexamination Control 90/008,150).

Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for ex parte reexamination filed
on August 3, 2006 of United States Patent 5,926,237 (the ‘237 Patent) issued
to Hee Young Yun, Kyo Hun Moon, Byeong Yun Lee, Yong Bum Kim, and
Young Un Bang on July 20, 1999. Presently, claims 1-5, 45-56, 58, 60-62,
and 64 stand rejected.
Patentee’s invention relates to a liquid crystal display device with “a
fastening element on a side . . . instead of on a front surface” (Spec, col. 4, ll.
31-32). Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of forming a liquid crystal display
device comprising the steps of:
forming a liquid crystal panel with a display area and
having front and back surfaces and a first plurality of edges;
forming a light unit with a second plurality of edges
joined with the liquid crystal panel;
forming a first support frame supporting the light unit
and having a portion that extends parallel to at least one edge of
the light unit;
forming a second support frame coupled to the portion of
the first frame;
forming an outer casing; and
forming a fastening part joining together the first and
second support frames and the outer casing through the portion
of the first support frame that is coupled to the second support
frame.

(App. Br. 23, Claims Appendix).

The Examiner cites the following references:

Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237

3
Masanori JP 07099394 A April 11, 1995
Aguilera US 5,666,261 Sep. 9, 1997
Komano US 5,375,005 Dec. 20, 1994
Yun US 5,926,237 Jul. 20, 19991

The Examiner rejects claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komano and Masanori; claims 45, 46, 48-50, 52-55, 58,
60-62, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Komano,
Masanori, and APA; and claims 47, 51, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komano, Masanori, APA, and Aguilera.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5, 45-56, 58, 60-62, and
64?

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘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.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).

1 Admitted Prior Art (“APA”).
Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a first support frame, a second support frame, an outer
casing, and joining together the first and second support frames and the outer
casing through the portion of the first support frame that is coupled to the
second support frame. Appellant argues that the combination of Komano
and Masanori fails to disclose or suggest a fastening part joining together
first and second support frames and the outer casing through the portion of
the first support frame that is coupled to the second support frame because,
according to Appellant, APA fails to disclose “joining the first and second
support frames to the outer casing through the portion of the first support
frame that is coupled to the second support frame” (App. Br. 12). We do not
understand Appellant’s argument that APA fails to disclose a claimed
feature to demonstrate that the combination of two different references
(namely, Komano and Masanori) also fails to disclose or suggest the claimed
feature.
Appellant also argues that the combination of Komano and Masanori
fails to disclose or suggest “a fastening part joining together the first and
second support frames and the outer casing” (App. Br. 12) because,
according to Appellant, “Komano does not teach two supporting frames and
an outer casing” and “Masanori does not teach . . . joining . . . first and
second support frames and the outer casing through the portion of the first
support frame that is coupled to the second support frame” (App. Br. 12).
Appellant also argues that there is no “reason why one of skill in the art
Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237

5
would join two frames and cover” (App. Br. 16), that none “of the elements
was independently known in the prior art” (id.), that the cited references do
not “teach or suggest each and every claim feature” (id.), and that there is no
reason “why the teachings of a particular combination would lead to the
claimed invention” (App. Br. 17).
However, as the Examiner indicates, Komano discloses a liquid
crystal display in which two frames are joined via side edges.2 Masanori
also discloses a liquid crystal device in which a casing attaches to the liquid
crystal device via side edges.3 It would at least have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art given that a liquid crystal device has two frames that
are connected via side edges (as disclosed by Komano) to have joined the
liquid crystal device via its side edge to a side edge of a casing since
Masanori discloses that liquid crystal devices are connected via their side
edges to side edges of casings (the side edges of the liquid crystal device
already formed by the joining of the side edges of two frames, as disclosed
by Komano). Such a combination would have entailed no more than the

2 Komano discloses “a liquid crystal display plate 11” (col. 3, l. 67; Fig. 1)
and a “pair [of] frame members 43, 44” (col. 4, l. 51) with “claw portions for
engaging the front and rear frame members 43 and 44 of the supporting
frames 13 with each other” (col. 6, ll. 61-63). The claw portions of Komano
are at the “sides of the first frame” (see Fig. 1) and the liquid crystal display
plate of Komano is positioned between the first and second frame.

3 Masanori discloses connecting a side aspect of one frame (element 6, Figs.
2-3) of a liquid crystal device with a side aspect of a casing (element 8, Figs.
1-2).
Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237

6
combination of known elements – i.e., 1) Masanori – connecting an LCD to
a casing via side edges and 2) Komano – disclosing the fact that LCDs
contain a first and second frame connected via side edges. Such a
combination of known elements would have entailed no more than
combining such known elements in known ways to achieve an expected
result such as a liquid crystal device connecting via side edges to a casing, as
disclosed by Masanori. “The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 416.
Appellant provides similar arguments for claim 45 (App. Br. 14-17)
and claim 54 (App. Br. 18-21). Appellant does not provide additional
arguments with respect to Aguilera or in support of dependent claims 2-5,
46-53, 55, 56, 58, 60-62, or 64.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5 as
obvious over Komano and Masanori; claims 45, 46, 48-50, 52-55, 58, 60-62,
or 64 as obvious over Komano, Masanori, and APA; and claims 47, 51, or
56 as obvious over Komano, Masanori, APA, and Aguilera.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 45-56, 58, 60-62,
and 64 is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-007902
Reexamination Control 90/008,143
Patent 5,926,237

7
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

BRUCE K. LAGERMAN
11921 FREEDOM DRIVE
SUITE 500
RESTON, VA 20190

cu