Ex Parte Choi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

11289221 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SEONG-SIK CHOI, DONG-LYOUL SHIN, JAE-
HWAN CHUN, BYUNG-YUN JOO, JUNG-WOOK PAEK,
JIN-SUNG CHOI, JU-HWA HA, HEU-GON KIM, and
SANG-HOON LEE
________________

Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-59, 61, 62, and 74-83. Claims 60 and 63-
73 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention relates to a liquid crystal display (LCD)
backlight assembly that possesses a light dispersion plate with a light
dispersion surface specially designed to improve the uniformity of light
transmissivity (Spec. 1-2). The independent claims on appeal are claims 1,
20, 24, 40, 47, 57, 61 and 74. Independent claims 1 and 74 are illustrative,
reading as follows:
1. A backlight assembly comprising:
a light dispersion member including a lower face portion
having ridges extending in a first direction and grooves
extending in the first direction, the ridges and the grooves
alternately arranged on the lower face portion, and an
irradiating surface opposite to the lower face portion in a
vertical direction of the backlight assembly; and
a light source having a plurality of light source members,
a distance defined between light source members that are
adjacent to each other, each light source member positioned
under a respective ridge in the vertical direction,
wherein an interval in the vertical direction between a
center of a first light source member and a ridge positioned
directly over the first light source member is from about 0.2 to
about 0.55 times the distance.
74. A light dispersion member for a backlight assembly, the
light dispersion member comprising:
a first face for irradiating light; and,
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

3
a second face for receiving light from a plurality of light
sources, the second face having a plurality of alternately
arranged convex and concave portions forming a wave shape,
wherein thickest vertical portions of the light dispersion
member are between about 1.15 to about 1.75 times vertical
thinnest portions of the light dispersion member; and
wherein each of the thickest vertical portions are [sic: is]
disposed over and face a light source of the plurality of light
sources.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:2
Yang US 2004/0109314 A1 June 10, 2004
Suga US 2005/0046321 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
Lee US 6,950,154 B2 Sep. 27, 2005
Ouderkirk US 2006/0002141 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
(filed June 30, 2004)
Leu US 7,011,440 B2 Mar. 14, 2006
(filed Sep. 8, 2003)
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-30, 36, 37, 40-44, 46, 47, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62,
and 74-83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yang in
view of Leu.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yang in view of Leu and Ouderkirk.
Claims 15 and 31-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yang in view of Leu, Ouderkirk, and Suga.

2 Japanese patent document, Fumikura (2003-279978, published Oct. 2,
2003), and Korean patent document, Lee (1020030091570, published Dec.
3, 2003) were both submitted in an IDS that was filed July 6, 2009. Since
the record indicates that the Examiner has not considered these references,
these references are not being considered on appeal.
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

4
Claims 38, 39, 45, 48-53, 55, 58, and 59 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yang in view of Leu and Lee.

FINDING OF FACT
The record supports the following Finding of Fact (Fact) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Leu
1. “A number of scattering dots are positioned on and integrated
with the optical input surface [of an LCD light guide plate] . . . . This
promotes uniform intensity light emission from the optical output
surface to illuminate the liquid crystal display panel” (col. 1, ll. 59-
67). The scattering dots may be convex, protruding outwardly from
the optical input surface (col. 2, ll. 60-62; Figs. 1-3). The scattering
dots may alternatively be concave, protruding into the surface (col. 3,
ll. 5-7; Figs 4-5).
“[T]he scattering dots 23 all have a hemispherical shape,
however, they can instead have a tetrahedral shape, or any other
suitable shape. The scattering dots 23 can be injection molded with,
printed on, or adhered to the optical input surface 221” (col. 3, ll. 8-
12).

ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants and the Examiner generally agree on the relevant
structures that Yang and Leu disclose. For example, Yang discloses a
direct-lit backlight with “lamps 233 [that] are always disposed within the
arced groove 237 [of light guide plate 231]” (Br. 19; cf. Ans. 3-4). Leu
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

5
discloses an edge-lit backlight with an optical input surface that includes a
plurality of scattering dots 23 (Br. 21; cf. Ans. 3-4).
The Examiner finds that the textured surface of Yang’s light guide
plate 231 may be modified by substituting convex ridges for the concave
grooves 237 that are vertically aligned with light sources 233 (Ans. 4; see
Yang, Fig. 3). The Examiner’s basis for making this modification is that
Leu teaches that convex and concave rounded surface structures both
increase dispersion of light incident on a light guide plate (Fact 1; Ans. 4,
14-15), and as such, concave and convex surface features on a light guide
plate input surface were art-recognized functionally equivalent structures
(Ans. 4, 14-15).
I.
Appellants contend that Yang fails to disclose light sources positioned
under respective ridges in the vertical direction as required by claims 1 and
24 (Br. 17-19).3 Appellants further contend that Leu fails to cure the
deficiencies of Yang because Leu also fails to disclose ridges and grooves
extending in a first direction with the ridges vertically aligned over
associated light sources (Br. 19-21).
We will initially assume for the sake of argument that a “ridge” is a
structure that extends in a particular direction. That is, we assume a ridge,
analogous to a line, has a length significantly longer than its width. As such,
Leu’s convex scattering dots, which are more analogous to points than lines,
do not constitute “ridges.”
Even accepting this interpretation, though, Appellants’ argument is
still not persuasive. The Examiner is not proposing that Yang’s ridges be

3 The other six independent claims on appeal recite similar language.
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

6
replaced with Leu’s dots. Rather, the Examiner’s position is that Leu
teaches modifying the shape of Yang’s ridges so as to be convex instead of
concave (Ans. 4). Appellants have not provided any arguments as to why
convex grooves and concave ridges were not art-recognized equivalent
structures (see Br. 17-22).
II.
Appellants also contend that the “suggested combination [of Yang and
Leu] would cause the devices to fail to function for their intended purposes”
(Br. 21). Appellants reason that when Yang’s direct-lit backlight device is
combined with Leu’s edge-lit light device, “[t]he resulting device would be a
backlight assembly having a bottom face with a plurality of grooves with
lamps formed therein and a plurality of scattering dots formed on one side
surface of the assembly. Such an assembly would actually degrade display
performance” (Br. 21-22).
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner is not proposing that
Yang’s light guide plate be modified so as to possess both (1) ridges on the
bottom surface and (2) scattering dots on an edge surface. Rather, the
Examiner’s position is that Leu teaches modifying the shape of Yang’s
ridges so as to be convex instead of concave (Ans. 4).
III.
Regarding independent claim 74, the Examiner interprets the claim
term “convex” according to the relatively broad definition, “not having
indentations” (Ans. 8). Appellants argue that
[t]he Examiner’s definition . . . is not in keeping with the term
as is commonly known in the art or as defined in several well-
respected references. A definition more in line with, but not
exclusive to, the definition of convex as known in the art is as
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

7
follows: “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a
sphere or circle.”
(Br. 19 (emphasis added)).
This argument is not persuasive. The relevant inquiry is not whether
one definition may be more common than another. Rather, it is well
established that during examination, the claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It is Appellants’ burden to precisely
define the invention, not the USPTO’s. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants always have the opportunity to amend the
claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the Examiner reduces
the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly
than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969).
In the present case, Appellants have not provided any evidence that
the Examiner’s definition is unreasonably broad (e.g., Br. 19). To the
contrary, Appellants even acknowledge that their proffered, narrower
definition is not the exclusive reasonable definition (id.).
IV.
In further regard to claim 74, Appellants additionally argue that “the
scattering dots 23 do not form a plurality of alternatingly arranged convex
and concave portions forming a wave shape as claimed” (Br. 21). We
understand Appellants’ argument to be that even if Yang were to be
modified so as to possess convex ridges opposite the light sources instead of
the concave recesses, the modified device would still possess flat recessed
surface regions interposed between the convex surface regions, and as such,
the modified surface would not form a “wave shape” as recited in claim 74.
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

8
This argument is not persuasive either. Claim 74 does not specify that
the “wave shape” must necessarily be a full wave. Because the modified
surface of Yang may be interpreted as constituting a clipped wave, such a
modified surface would satisfy the language of claim 74.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 20, 24, 40,
47, 57, 61, and 74. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims as well as of claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21-23, 25-30, 36, 37, 41-
44, 46, 54, 56, 62 and 75-83 which depend from those claims.
With respect to the remaining rejections of claims 10, 15, 31-35, 38,
39, 45, 48-53, 55, 58, and 59, Appellants provide no patentability arguments
directed to any of the additional references, Ouderkirk (claim 10), Ouderkirk
and Suga (claims 15 and 31-35), or Lee (claims 38, 39, 45, 48-53, 55, 58,
and 59). Rather, Appellants repeat the arguments directed to the
independent claims and argue the allowability of the remaining claims based
upon their dependency from the independent claims (Br. 23-24).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejections
of these dependent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-62 and 74-83 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-012588
Application 11/289,221

9

babc

CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103