Ex Parte Jeon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

11473747 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

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.
11/473,747 06/23/2006 Seong-Man Jeon 12576-7042 8086
757 7590 12/17/2013
BGL
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
BANNAN, JULIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2885
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2013 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 SEONG-MAN JEON
____________

Appeal 2011-009863
Application 11/473,747
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 5, 7-11, 13-16, and 19.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The invention relates to a backlight assembly which includes a light emitting
diode for supplying light to a non-emissive type display device such as an LCD

1 Final Office Action mailed Jul. 29, 2010.
2 Appeal Brief filed Nov. 29, 2010 (“Br.”).
Appeal 2011-009863
Application 11/473,747

2
device. (See Spec.3 [0002], [0005].) Appellant requests review of the following
grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)4 (Br. 5):
1. claims 5, 9-11, 13-16, and 19 as unpatentable over Suzuki (US
2004/0218388 A1, published Nov. 4, 2004) in view of McDermott (US 6,361,190
B1, issued Mar. 26, 2002) and further in view of Onishi (US 2005/0243551 A1,
published Nov. 3, 2005);
2. claim 7 as unpatentable over Suzuki in view of McDermott and
Onishi (as applied to claim 5 above) and further in view of West
(US 6,607,286 B2, issued Aug. 19, 2003); and
3. claim 8 as unpatentable over Suzuki in view of McDermott and
Onishi (as applied to claim 5 above) and further in view of Mizuno (US
2005/0068617 A1, published Mar. 31, 2005).
Appellant presents separate arguments in support of patentability of the
following groups of claims: (1) claims 5 and 7-10; (2) claims 11 and 13-15; and
(3) claims 16 and 19. (Br. 8-25.) However, these arguments are virtually identical,
and are based on limitations common to the independent claims, i.e., claims 5, 11,
and 16. (Compare id. at 8-14 with id. at 14-19 with id. at 19-25.) For convenience,
we refer to pages of the Appeal Brief directed to claim group (3) and, for reference,
reproduce independent claim 16 below (Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief):
16. A backlight assembly, comprising:

a plurality of red, green and blue side emission type light emitting diodes,

wherein each of the plurality of red, green and blue side emission type light
emitting diodes comprises:

3 Specification filed Jun. 23, 2006.
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5, 7-11, 13-16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph. (Answer mailed Mar. 2, 2011 (“Ans.”), 3.)
Appeal 2011-009863
Application 11/473,747

3

an emitting portion on a base portion; and

a lens portion covering the emitting portion and having an slanted upper
surface, wherein the slanted upper surface has a reversed cone shape and a slanted
angle of about 55 to 85 degrees with respect to a center axis of the emitting
portion, wherein each of the plurality of red, green and blue side emission type
light emitting diodes has a highest luminous intensity at an angle of about 55 to 80
degrees with respect to the center axis of the emitting portion, wherein a ratio of
luminous intensity of light at 0 degrees with respect to the center axis of the
emitted portion and the highest luminous intensity is equal to or less than 0.02, and
wherein red, green and blue lights emitted from the red, green and blue side
emission type light emitting diodes go sideward and are mixed to produce a white
light; and

a plurality of optical sheets that condense and diffuse white light that
includes a prism sheet and a diffusion sheet directly on and contacting the prism
sheet, the prism sheet disposed directly over the plurality of red, green and blue
side emitting type light emitting diodes.

We have fully considered the arguments advanced by Appellant, but are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed in the Answer. We add
the following discussion for emphasis.
The Examiner relies on Suzuki as the primary reference, finding Suzuki
discloses a backlight assembly for use in a display panel which includes side
emitting LEDs. (Ans. 4, 9.) The Examiner further finds Suzuki discloses the
LEDs comprise a lens portion having a slanted upper surface 6 which includes a
prism (id. at 4 (citing Suzuki [0081])), but concedes Suzuki does not disclose that
the prism has a reverse cone shape and slanted angle of about 55 to 85 degrees
(id.). However, the Examiner finds McDermott discloses side emitting LEDs
which include a prism having a reverse cone shape and slanted angle of 52 degrees,
Appeal 2011-009863
Application 11/473,747

4
which meets the limitation of “about 55” degrees as recited in appealed claims 5,
11, and 16. (Id. at 5.) The Examiner further finds “McDermott [] teaches the
greatest luminous intensity is from the central axis to about 75 degrees from the
central axis.” (Id.) The Examiner determines “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the LED
lens structure of McDermott in the device of Suzuki in order to optimize the
amount of light emission (intensity) for maximum efficiency [and] . . . improve the
uniformity of brightness in the display. (Id. at 5-6.) The Examiner finds the
ordinary artisan “would have been motivated to make the slant angle between 55-
80 in order to tailor the light emission as desired for particular lighting needs and
device applications.” (Id. at 5.) The Examiner relies on Onishi solely for a
disclosure of using optical sheets having a configuration as claimed in a lighting
system image display. (See id. at 6.)
Appellant’s principal arguments are that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to: (1) modify Suzuki to use McDermott’s LED
lens structure because McDermott does not relate to using LEDs in backlight
displays (Br. 22-23) and (2) adjust the slant angle to the claimed range of “about
55 to 85” degrees because McDermott discloses a broad slant angle range of 5-88
and provides no guidance or direction as to the range suitable for LEDs in a
backlight display (id. at 23-25; see e.g. id. at 24 (noting Appellant found the slant
angle range of 55-85 was effective in preventing color spots while creating the
highest luminous intensity at 55-80 degrees)).
Appellant’s first argument fails to address the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood McDermott and Suzuki disclose
alternative structures for achieving the same result, i.e., changes in emission angles
of LEDs (Ans. 9-10). As explained by the Supreme Court, “[i]f a person of
Appeal 2011-009863
Application 11/473,747

5
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Turning to Appellant’s second argument, we note that in patent claims “use
of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter,”
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2007). To determine a standard by which to interpret the relative term
“about” as used in the claims, we look to the Specification. With respect to the
slant angle, the Specification does not provide explicit guidance by which the
lower limit of the range “about 55 to 85 degrees” can be determined. However,
with respect to the angles used to create the highest luminous intensities, the
Specification states that an angle of 50 degrees provided an improved mixing of
colors as compared to an angle of 40 degrees where the mixing of colors was not
effective. (Spec. [0034-0035].) The mixing of colors was still not considered
“effective” at 50 degrees because a spot was still caused, whereas no spot was
caused at 67.5 degrees where the mixing of colors was effective. (Id. at [0035-
0036].) Given this disclosure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the lower
limit of the recited range of “about 55 to 80 degrees” for the angles used to create
the highest luminous intensities would reasonably encompass angles between 50
and 55. Consistent with this interpretation of “about” as used in connection with
the range for angles used to create the highest luminous intensities, it was
reasonable for the Examiner to interpret the lower limit of the slant angle range of
“about 55 to 85 degrees” as encompassing the slant angle of “about 52 degrees” in
Appeal 2011-009863
Application 11/473,747

6
the embodiment disclosed in McDermott FIGS. 1-4 (see McDermott, col. 7, ll. 14-
15). (See Spec. [0037] (“The highest luminous intensity will be created at an angle
range of about 55 to 80 degrees when the slanted upper surface has a slanted angle
of about 55 to 85 degrees.).)
Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art and
claimed ranges overlap, as well as in those cases where the claimed range and the
prior art range, though not overlapping, are sufficiently close that one skilled in
the art would have expected them to have the same or similar properties. See, e.g.,
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). That
presumption is rebuttable either by a showing that the prior art taught away from
the invention or by a showing of new and unexpected results relative to the prior
art. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence of criticality in the claimed
range. Nor has Appellant argued persuasively that McDermott teaches away from
an angle of 55-80 degrees for the reasons expressed by the Examiner (see Ans. 11).
In sum, for the reasons expressed in the Answer and above, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 7-11, 13-16, and 19.
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).

AFFIRMED

cam