Ex Parte Kikuchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2018

14435416 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/435,416 04/13/2015 Takanori Kikuchi
42212 7590 12/13/2018
Panasonic IP Management Co., Ltd.
IP Management Department, Applications Promotion
7F OBP Panasonic Tower, 2-1-61 Shiromi, Chuo-ku,
Osaka, 540-6207
JAPAN
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.
P658013-01K 1026
EXAMINER
EIDE,ERICT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2018 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):
ppc.docket@ml.jp. panasonic. com
admin@culpepperip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKANORI KIKUCHI, YUSUKE KUSAKA,
MASARU FUJITA, YOSHIHIKO KANAYAMA,
SHOHROH MOCHIDA, and MASAMI ITO
Appeal2018-001502
Application 14/435,416
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed April 13, 2015 ("Spec.");
the Final Office Action dated May 18, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Advisory
Action dated September 5, 2017 ("Adv. Act."); the Appeal Brief filed
September 22, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer dated November
14, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed November 28, 2017 ("Reply
Br.").
Appeal2018-001502
Application 14/435,416
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The invention relates to an edge-light type backlight for a liquid
crystal panel. Spec. ,r 1. In an edge-light type backlight, a light guide plate
has light sources provided at side edges and light incident from the light
sources is diffused by the light guide plate and irradiated to the liquid crystal
display panel through plural optical sheets. Spec. ,r 3. The invention seeks
to secure viewing angle characteristics, suppress luminance non-uniformity
in an angular direction, and improve dimming characteristics. Spec. ,r 15.
These goals are accomplished, according to the Specification, by a light
guide plate, in which light is incident from an incident surface, and plural
prisms formed on a reflection prism surface with cross-sectional shapes
determined in consideration of optical paths of direct light from the LEDs
and reflected light emitted from the LEDs and reflected on a light emitting
surface. Spec. ,r 18. The cross-sectional shapes are approximately V-shaped
grooves, and the approximately V-shaped grooves have two or more cross-
sectional shapes, which secures viewing angle characteristics and suppresses
luminance non-uniformity as well as increasing front luminance and
improving the dimming characteristics. Spec. 18.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief with the disputed limitations italicized, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
2 Appellant is applicant Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co.,
Ltd., identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal2018-001502
Application 14/435,416
1. A light source device comprising:
a light source; and
a light guide plate,
wherein the light guide plate includes an incident surface
on which light emitted from the light source is incident, an
emission surface emitting light incident from the incident
surface, and a propagating reflection surface which is a surface
opposite to the emission surface and which propagates and
reflects the light incident from the incident surface toward the
emission surface,
the propagating reflection surface has V-shaped grooves
and the V-shaped grooves are formed by repetition of two kinds
of cross-sectional shapes,
the two kinds of V-shaped grooves have first grooves and
second grooves alternately aligned from the incident surface,
angles made by the first groove and the propagating
reflection surface are a, B and angles made by the second
groove and the propagating reflection surface are y, L'.1, the a is
in a range from 42 degrees to 60 degrees and they is in a range
from 60 degrees to 72 degrees, and
the LI is in a range from 42 degrees to 60 degrees and the
fJ is in a range from 60 degrees to 72 degrees.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kono et al. ("Kono") US 2009/0316064 Al
Suzuki US 2011/0109533 Al
3
Dec. 24, 2009
May 12, 2011
Appeal2018-001502
Application 14/435,416
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-5 over Suzuki; and (2)
claims 6-11 over Suzuki in view of Kono. Final Act. 3-9; App. Br. 9-13.
OPINION
Appellant argues the claims as a group. App. Br. 9. Claims 2-11 will
stand or fall with claim 1, which is the sole independent claim on appeal. 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Figure 1 of the application, reproduced below, illustrates the angles
( a, B, y, and~) which are the inventive features argued in this appeal:
22
16 12
31 32
15
Fig. 1 is a schematic cross-sectional view of a light guide plate 13 3
representative of the claimed invention. Spec. ,r 21. According to the
Specification, angle a of the first prisms 31 mainly contributes to the
improvement of the front luminance, and angle B mainly contributes to the
improvement of the dimming characteristics. Spec. ,r 30. Angley of the
3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal2018-001502
Application 14/435,416
second prisms 32 mainly contributes to the control of the viewing angle
characteristics, and angle L1 contributes to the control of the viewing angle
characteristics. Spec. ,r 30.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Suzuki teaches the
claim limitations, except does not teach the specific degree ranges of angles
a, B, y, and L'.1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have made angles a and y be from 42 degrees to 60 degrees and angles L1
and B be from 60 degrees to 72 degrees. Id. ( citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456 (CCP A 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation.")).
Fig. 1 of Suzuki, illustrating a schematic configuration of a surface
light source device of Suzuki's invention (Suzuki ,r 3 5), is reproduced
below:
"lvL ·\;
11cE:~~~:/~:-~i1~*·::~~~:-~::,:;::~:::;};'°;~~-;~~;;t/.
IOR
.~ ~ ~\ \ \ )' \. ~~
( \ ', ' ' ( '
SI 11L, iiLz ! UL, 11L, 11L,
-----------------• --------------------; ---·····v ····················/····
t 11L ,
\
z
~x
i
'
11R: y
11R
FIG. 1
5
Appeal2018-001502
Application 14/435,416
Appellant contends that the Examiner uses impermissible hindsight in
modifying the angles described in Suzuki to the ranges claimed in claim 1.
App. Br. 9. Appellant argues that there is a conflict between the necessary
characteristics of groove portions to provide improved viewing angle,
luminance non-uniformity and dimming, making it difficult to achieve these
three features at the same time. Id. Appellant argues that Suzuki's intended
purpose is forming uniform light emission intensity distribution, and
modifying the reference with the claimed angles would make it
unsatisfactory for this purpose. Id. at 10. Appellant argues that, in contrast
to Suzuki, the claimed invention is aimed at securing the viewing angle
characteristic, increasing the front brightness, and improving the dimming
performance. Id.
The problem with the rejection of claim 1 is that the Examiner does
not direct us to any reason----other than impermissible hindsight-why one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have sought to
use the claimed angles in Suzuki's invention. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek
LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]bviousness concerns
whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been
motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to anive at
the claimed invention."). The only information provided by Suzuki
regarding values for angles a and pis:
(l)f~