Ex Parte Dunn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2018

13707762 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131707,762 12/07/2012
8698 7590 06/07/2018
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Dunn
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.
MAN2241-111B 3565
EXAMINER
BRIGGS, NATHANAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2018 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):
s tandleydocketing@standley llp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM DUNN, RICK DELAET,
and MARTIN JARL
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707,762
Technology Center 2800
Before: ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
Independent claim 1 is generally illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1. An LED backlight assembly comprising:
a mounting substrate;
a plurality of LEDs positioned on the mounting substrate
in a direct lit orientation;
an optically-isolated cavity positioned adjacent to the
mounting substrate which is optically isolated from the light
generated by the plurality of LEDs; and
an information block LED positioned within the optically-
isolated cavity, wherein the light from the plurality of LEDs is
permitted to mix.
Independent claims 11 and 15 principally differ from claim 1 in that
claim 11 requires a printed circuit board (PCB) as the mounting surface and
a plurality of LEDs distributed across the front surface of the PCB, while
claim 15 does not require a light guide between the liquid crystal stack and
the LEDs. App. Br. 8, 18.
Appellant 1 (see generally App. Br.) requests review of the following
rejections from the Examiner's Final Office Action:
I. Claims 11, 13 and 14 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2007/0013828 Al, published
January 18, 2007) (hereinafter "Cho").
II. Claims 1-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cho and Dunn et al. (US 2011/0242839 Al, published
October 6, 2011) (hereinafter "Dunn").
1 Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. is the Applicant/ Appellant
and is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
III. Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cho, Dunn, and Song (US 2009/0085859 Al,
published April 2, 2009).
IV. Claim 17 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cho, Dunn, Song, and Lys (US 7,781,979 B2, issued
August 24, 2010).
V. Claim 18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cho, Dunn, Song, and Sakai et al. (US 2009/0135167 Al,
published May 28, 2009) (hereinafter "Sakai").
OPINION
The Prior Art Rejections
Appellant presents arguments only for independent claims 1, 11, and
15. See generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select the independent claims
as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Dependent
claims 2-10, 13, 14, and 16-20 stand or fall with their respective
independent claims.
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of representative claim 1-11
and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) for the reasons presented
by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
Anticipatory rejection of claim 11
Independent claim 11 is directed to an LED backlight assembly
comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) as the mounting surface and a
plurality of LEDs distributed across the front surface of the PCB. App. Br.
8.
3
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
The Examiner finds the LED assembly of Cho' s Figure 10 anticipates
the subject matter of claim 11 because it describes the LED assembly as
comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) 419 having a plurality of LEDs
411 distributed on its front surface. Final Act. 3.
As argued by Appellant, claim 11 is directed to an LED backlight
assembly comprising a PCB having a plurality of LEDs distributed across
the front surface of the PCB. App. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that the claim
language "distributed across the front surface of the PCB" describing the
placement of the LEDs "would seem to require some LEDs found across
each portion of the front surface of the PCB." Id. at 9. Appellant, thus,
argues that Cho does not distribute a plurality of LEDs across the surface of
a printed circuit board as required by claim 11 because Cho does not
disclose placing LEDs on the central portion of the PCB. Id. at 8-9.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3--4. Appellant's arguments are
premised on the subject matter of the claim requiring placement
(distribution) of LEDs across the entire front surface of the PCB. However,
Appellant has not pointed to any language in the claim that describes the
argued distribution nor does Appellant direct us to any portion in the
Specification that defines "distributed across" in a manner that distinguishes
the claimed LED distribution from Cho' s LED distribution. Thus, Appellant
has not pointed to error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation.
4
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
Obviousness rejection of claim 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to an LED backlight assembly
comprising a plurality of LEDs positioned on a mounting substrate in a
direct lit orientation. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner finds that Cho discloses an LED backlight assembly
that differs from the claimed invention in that Cho does not disclose a direct
lit orientation. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds Dunn discloses
positioning of a plurality of LEDs in direct lit orientation as a known
technique for illumination. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5; and Dunn i-f 5. The
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
modify the LED backlight assembly of Cho by positioning the LEDs in
direct lit orientation because it is a known alternate LED arrangement to
provide light uniformity. Final Act. 4; see also Dunn i-f 5.
Appellant asserts that Cho is entirely directed to edge lighting. App.
Br. 11. According to Appellant, to modify the Cho device so that the
backlight is in a direct lit orientation would be contrary to the entire purpose
of the Cho device, as it would increase both the thickness of the resulting
display as well as its weight. Id. Specifically, Appellant argues it would
result in having a larger quantity of LEDs over the PCB surface, which
would require a rigid base as opposed to Cho's flexible PCB. Id. at 11-15.
Thus, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained how one skilled
in the art would modify Cho to arrive at the claimed invention. App. Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. Ans. 5-9.
5
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
As noted by the Examiner, Dunn provides one skilled in the art with
guidance on how to modify a backlight device for the use of LEDs in direct
lit orientation. Ans. 6; see also Dunn i-f 5. Specifically, Dunn discloses that
LEDs in a direct-lit fashion requires that there be a space between the LEDs
and the diffusing devices. Dunn i-f 5. While Dunn recognizes that this LED
arrangement increases the thickness of the backlight assembly, we find
nothing in Dunn that discourages one skilled in the art from using such an
alternate arrangement if so desired. Id. Instead, Dunn suggests this
arrangement as desirable for the use of low-power LEDs over high-power
LEDs. Id. Thus, Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in
the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable
of using a direct-lit LED arrangement in the LED backlight assembly of Cho
given Dunn's disclosure. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
(2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton."); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (Skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art.).
Obviousness rejection of claim 152
Independent claim 15 is directed to an LED backlight assembly
comprising a liquid crystal stack positioned in front of the LEDs with no
light guide in between the liquid crystal stack and the LEDs. App. Br. 18.
2 A discussion of the reference to Song is unnecessary for disposition of this
rejection. The Examiner did not rely on Song to address the use or lack of
use of a light guide in an LED backlight assembly. Final Act. 6.
6
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
The Examiner finds that Cho discloses an LED backlight assembly
that differs from the claimed invention in that Cho does not disclose a
backlight assembly without a light guide in between the liquid crystal stack
and the LEDs. Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner finds Dunn discloses the use
of LEDs in a direct-lit arrangement. Final Act. 6; see also Dunn i-f 5. The
Examiner finds this arrangement is one that has no light guide between the
liquid crystal stack and the LEDs and determines it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the LED backlight assembly of
Cho by positioning the LEDs in direct lit orientation because it is a known
alternate LED arrangement to provide light uniformity. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues claim 15 does not require light guides while Cho
requires this feature for the disclosed backlight assembly. App. Br. 18.
According to Appellant, removal of the light guides changes the principle of
operation of Cho's device. Id. Appellant also asserts that Dunn does not
mention light guides. Id. at 19.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. Ans. 10.
As explained by the Examiner, the removal of Cho' s light guides 431
and 435 to create a space for direct-lit orientation according to the teaching
of Dunn would not affect the ability to isolate the LEDs in their respective
optical cavities because of the presence of opaque member 472 of Cho. Id.
While Appellant argues that Dunn does not mention light guides,
Appellant's argument does not adequately address the Examiner's finding
that an LED direct-lit arrangement is one that has no light guide between the
liquid crystal stack and the LEDs.
7
Appeal2017-007825
Application 13/707 ,762
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claims 1-10 and 15-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-20 are
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8