Ex Parte Kimura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

09837105 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte HAJIME KIMURA
________________

Appeal 2008-3152
Application 09/837,105
Technology Center 2879
________________

Decided:1 June 29, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3152
Application 09/837,105
2

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 56 to 64 and 78 to 88. We will reverse.
The disclosed invention relates to light extraction and scattering from
a light scattering body of a light emitting display device. The light is
extracted and scattered from a surface of the light scattering body that faces
away from an abutting substrate. An inner angle between the surface of the
light scattering body that abuts the substrate and the opposite scattering and
extracting surface of the light scattering body is not less than 60º and is less
than 180º (Fig. 4A; Spec. 6 and 7).
Claim 56 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
56. A light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate;
a first electrode formed over a first surface of the substrate;
an EL layer formed over the first electrode;
a second electrode formed over the EL layer; and
a light scattering body having a first surface and a second surface,
formed on a second surface of the substrate, which is opposite to the first
surface of the substrate,
wherein the first surface of the light scattering body is in contact with
the second surface of the substrate,
wherein the second surface of the light scattering body is for
scattering and extracting a light, and
wherein an inner angle between the first surface of the light scattering
body and the second surface of the light scattering body is not less than 60º
and is less than 180º.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ooi US 5,206,746 Apr. 27, 1993
Jones US 5,920,080 Jul. 6, 1999
Shibata US 6,147,451 Nov. 14, 2000
Appeal 2008-3152
Application 09/837,105
3
Abe US 6,617,784 B1 Sep. 9, 2003
(filed Jun. 8, 1998)
Duggal US 6,777,871 B2 Aug. 17, 2004
(filed Mar. 31, 2000)

The Examiner rejected claims 56, 59 to 62, 64, 80, 82 to 84, 86, and
88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Abe and Ooi.
The Examiner rejected claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Abe, Ooi, and Jones.
The Examiner rejected claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Abe, Ooi, and Shibata.
The Examiner rejected claims 78, 79, 81, 85, and 87 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Abe, Ooi, and Duggal.
The Examiner acknowledges (Final Rej. 2), and Appellant agrees (Br.
11), that Abe does not disclose the claimed feature wherein an “inner angle
between the first surface of the light scattering body and the second surface
of the light scattering body is not less than 60º and is less than 180º.” The
Examiner states (Final Rej. 2 and 3) that Ooi discloses a light scattering
body wherein “an inner angle between the first surface (7) of light scattering
body (2) and the second surface (4A) of the light scattering body (2) is not
less than 60 degrees and is less than 180 degrees (see column 6, lines 41 to
column 7, line 6).” In view of the teachings of Ooi, the Examiner is of the
opinion (Final Rej. 3) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use the light scattering prism of Ooi in place of the light
scattering body of Abe in order
to obtain a transparent-scattering type optical device having a
symmetric viewing angle with respect to the front face, capable

Appeal 2008-3152
Application 09/837,105
4

of reducing the loss of the light volume of the illumination means
disposed at the back side of the optical device, and providing a bright
display and a high contrast ratio.

Appellant argues (Br. 15 to 18) that the light scattering body in Ooi is
directed to a reflection-type device that absorbs and reflects light, and is not
designed for scattering and extracting light as set forth in the claims on
appeal.
Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s findings (Final Rej. 2)
that Abe describes all of the claim 56 light emitting display device structure
except for the claimed inner angle that is “not less than 60º and is less than
180º.”
Although Ooi describes angles that are substantially similar to the
claimed angles (Abstract; col. 6, l. 50 to col. 7, l. 6), the noted second
surface 4A of the prism 2 functions to reflect light to the apex of the prism
where it is absorbed by light absorbing faces 5A and 5B (col. 5, ll. 48 to 56;
col. 9, ll. 8 to 17; col. 10, ll. 4 to 22). The reflection and absorption of light
in the prism 2 in Ooi is counter to the operation of Abe and to the “scattering
and extracting” of light from the claimed second surface of the light
scattering body.
Thus, we agree with the Appellant’s arguments that the combined
teachings of the references fail to teach or suggest a light emitting display
device wherein “the second surface of the light scattering body is for
scattering and extracting a light” when the “inner angle” between the first
and second surfaces of the light scattering body are as set forth in the claims
on appeal.
Appeal 2008-3152
Application 09/837,105
5
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 56, 59 to 62, 64, 80,
82 to 84, 86, and 88 is reversed because the Examiner’s articulated reasons
for combining the teachings of the references to Abe and Ooi do not support
a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007).
The obviousness rejections of claims 57, 58, 63, 78, 79, 81, 85, and 87
are reversed because the teachings of Jones, Shibata, and Duggal fail to cure
the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Abe and Ooi.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

gvw
COOK, ALEX, McFARRON, MANZO,
CUMMINGS & MEHLER, LTD.
200 WEST ADAMS STREET
SUITE 2850
CHICAGO, IL 60606