Ex Parte Hsieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13762571 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2561-0108 4853
EXAMINER
ZHANG, RUIYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/762,571 02/08/2013 Bar-Yuan Hsieh
42624 7590 09/28/2017
DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
09/28/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BAR-YUAN HSIEH,1
Jung-Pin Hsu, and Bo-Hsuan Lin
Appeal 2017-003863
Application 13/762,571
Technology Center 1700
Before MARKNAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Bar-Yuan Hsieh, Jung-Pin Hsu, and Bo-Hsuan Lin (“Hsieh”) timely
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1—8,
10-13, 16, and 17.3 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Chi Mei Corporation. (Appeal
Brief, filed25 March2016 (“Br”), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 4 December 2015 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
3 Remaining copending claims 14, 15, and 18—20 have been withdrawn
from consideration by the Examiner (FR 1, § 5a), and are not before us.
Appeal 2017-003863
Application 13/762,571
OPINION
A. Introduction4
The subject matter on appeal relates to a back-lit color liquid crystal
display device said to have improved high color reproduction. According to
the ’571 Specification, backlit color liquid crystal displays can provide
adequate light permeability for the blue color filter segment, but are “still not
able to reach satisfactory brightness and color reproduction requirements of
the liquid crystal display televisions.” (Spec. 2,11. 22—24.) The inventors
seek patent protection for a device that is said to remedy these deficiencies,
in which the blue filter segment is prepared from, inter alia, a blue pigment
component comprising a copper phthalocyanine as a blue pigment
component, and a red dye component, in a blue-to-red weight ratio ranging
from 0.1 to 100, and wherein the backlight unit coupled to the liquid crystal
display element has a color temperature ranging from 8,000 K to 20,000 K.
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A color liquid crystal display device, comprising:
a liquid crystal display element including
a color filter having
a blue filter segment,
a green filter segment, and
a red filter segment,
said blue filter segment being prepared from
a blue photosensitive resin composition which includes
a blue pigment component,
4 Application 13/762,571, Color liquid crystal display device,
filed 8 February 2013, claiming the benefit of an application filed in Taiwan
on 24 February 2012. We refer to the “’571 Specification,” which we cite as
“Spec.”
2
Appeal 2017-003863
Application 13/762,571
a red dye component,
an alkali-soluble resin, a compound having at least
one ethylenically unsaturated group, a photoinitiator,
and a solvent for dispersing said blue pigment
component, said red dye component, said alkali-
soluble resin, said compound having at least one
ethylenically unsaturated group, and said
photoinitiator,
said blue pigment component including a
copper phthalocyanine-based blue pigment',
and
a backlight unit coupled to said liquid crystal display
element and having a color temperature ranging from
8,000 K to 20,000 K,
wherein a weight ratio of said blue pigment component
to said red dye component ranges from 0.1 to 100.
(Claims App., Br. 8; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
It should be noted that the ’571 Specification uses the terms “dye” and
“pigment” interchangeably: See Spec. 6,11. 13—14, referring to formula (i)
as a “red dye,” and Spec. 21,11. 16—17, referring to formula (1-2), which has
the same rhodamine skeleton, as a “pigment.”
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5,6:
A. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10—13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kawana.5 6 7
5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 10 August 2016 (“Ans.”).
6 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
7 Shin Kawana et al., Blue color composition for color fdter, color fdter,
and color image display device, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2010/0208173 Al (2010).
3
Appeal 2017-003863
Application 13/762,571
Al. Claims 2—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of the combined teachings of Kawana and Seong.8
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Hsieh directs all arguments for patentability to limitations recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, all claims stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Hsieh argues first that
[although Kawana et al. has disclosed red dyes, such as
C.I. Acid Red 37 and C.I. Acid Red 180, such red dyes are
only generally described as applicable species for finely
adjusting the color (see 1200-205), and Kawana et al. should
not be deemed to have taught or suggested that red dyes are
critical for obtaining a color liquid crystal display device
having better color reproduction.
(Br. 5, last para.)
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error. Hsieh confirms the
Examiner’s finding that Kawana describes red dyes as additives for finely
tuning the color of blue filters. The claim does not state that the presence of
a red dye is “critical,” and Hsieh does not direct our attention to any
limitations of claim 1, such as particular properties, that have been linked to
the “critical” presence of a red dye in the blue filter segment.
8 Yeon-guk Seong et al., Color filter for a liquid crystal display using at
least one of Acid Red 52, Acid Red 486, and Rhodamine 6 GCT, U.S. Patent
No. 5,541,750 (1996).
4
Appeal 2017-003863
Application 13/762,571
Next, Hsieh argues that the overlap of the color temperature taught by
Kawana (5,000 to 10,000 K) with the range 8,000 K to 20,000 K recited in
claim 1 does not suffice to establish obviousness because Kawana teaches in
| 68 that “if the color temperature is too high, the brightness tends to
decrease.” (Br. 6,11. 6—7.)
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error because a claim is
unpatentable if it is shown that a single embodiment within the scope of the
claim would have been obvious. Here, there is no dispute that Kawana
teaches backlights with color temperatures in the range of 8,000 K
to 10,000 K, which is within the scope of backlights used in the claimed
LCD display. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(illustrating circumstances in which “even a slight overlap in range
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness”).
Finally, Hsieh urges that Kawana does not teach or suggest the
required weight ratio of a blue pigment component to a red dye component
in the range of 0.1 to 100. (Br., para, bridging 6—7.) Hsieh urges further that
Table 5 [at page 77 of the Specification], shows that the color reproduction
is better within the range than outside of the range. Hsieh does not,
however, explain why the Examiner’s finding that the Kawana’s disclosure
that the red dye can be used to fine tune the color filter indicates that the
amount of dye is a result-effective variable, the adjustment of the amount of
which is ordinarily within the skill of the art, and, without more, obvious.
(FR4, 1st full para.); see In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). Nor does Hsieh explain
why the better results would have been unexpected. Cf. In re Klosak,
5
Appeal 2017-003863
Application 13/762,571
455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (“the burden of showing unexpected
results rests on he who asserts them. Thus it is not enough to show that
results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that
difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference”) (internal citation
omitted).
In summary, we are not persuaded of harmful error in the appealed
rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1—8, 10—13, 16, and 17 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).
AFFIRMED
6