Ex Parte Sekiguchi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2009

10349019 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KANETAKA SEKIGUCHI
__________

Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: January 23, 2009
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
48-51, 55, 59, and 62-67.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INTRODUCTION
Appellant claims a liquid crystal display comprising a first substrate
(1) and a second substrate (2) such that one white diffusing film (22) is

1 A hearing was held in this appeal on November 18, 2008.
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

disposed on a liquid crystal side of the second substrate (2), and another
random-directional white diffusing film (not shown in figures) is disposed
between the first substrate (1) and the polarizing film (21A) wherein this
other white diffusing film has a substantially flat and substantially smooth
surface directly stuck to the first substrate (1) (Figure 2). Appellant
discloses the object of the invention is to provide a reflection-type liquid
crystal display device “capable of effecting a bright and whitish display”
(Spec. 6).
Claims 48 and 65-67 are illustrative:
48. A liquid crystal display device comprising: a first substrate
provided with signal electrodes or display electrodes formed on one surface
thereof, a second substrate provided with opposed electrodes formed
thereon; and liquid crystal sealed in-between the first substrate and the
second substrate, oppositely disposed to each other with a predetermined gap
interposed therebetween, characterized in that

a reflector is disposed on the second substrate,

one white diffusing film is disposed on a liquid crystal side of the
second substrate,

a polarizing film is disposed on a visible side of the first substrate, and

another random-directional white diffusing film is disposed between
the first substrate and the polarizing film, wherein this other white diffusing
film has a substantially flat and substantially smooth surface directly stuck to
the first substrate, so that reflection of incident light on the first substrate is
reduced and transmission of incident light through the first substrate
is improved.

65. The liquid crystal display device according to claim 48, wherein
the white diffusing film is flat.

2
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

66. The liquid crystal display device according to claim 48, wherein
the white diffusing film is a monolayer film.

67. The liquid crystal display device according to claim 48, wherein
the white diffusing film is formed of beads uniformly dispersed in a resin.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:

Abileah 5,629,784 May 13, 1997
Iijima 6,124,905 Sep. 26, 2000
Hirano 6,292,241 B1 Sep. 18, 2001

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 48-51, 55, 59, and 62-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Abileah and Hirano.
Appellant separately argues claims 48, 65, 66, and 67. Accordingly, we
address Appellant’s arguments with regard to claims 48, and 65-67, the non-
argued claims standing or falling with the argued claims.

CLAIM 48
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner finds that Iijima discloses all the features recited in
claim 48, except, in relevant part, “a substantially flat diffusion film with a
substantially smooth surface directly stuck to the first substrate and disposed
between the first substrate and the polarizing film” (Ans. 4-5). The
Examiner finds that Abileah discloses a film (17), which corresponds to
Appellant’s random-directional white diffusing film, disposed between the
first substrate (13) and the polarizing film (15) and attached thereto via an
adhesive layer so as to improve the viewing angle of the display (Ans. 6).
3
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

The Examiner further finds Abileah to teach that the “diffusion film may
optionally be most any type including Brightness Enhancing Film, Optical
Lighting Film, hologram (known to be smooth and flat) and gelatin (known
to use beads and be smooth and flat monolayer when formed between
smooth and flat adjacent layers” (citations omitted) (Ans. 6).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that “it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of liquid crystals at the
time the invention was made to modify the LCD of Iijima with a
conventional flat, smooth, uniformly distributed beads in gelatin, random-
directional white diffusion film disposed between the first substrate and the
polarizing film that is index of refraction matched by an adhesive layer on
both sides of Abileah to achieve a number of advantages including [to]
improve viewing angle” (Ans. 6).
Appellant argues the combination of Iijima in view of Abileah and
Hirano fails to teach or suggest all the claim features (App. Br. 7-10).
Specifically, Appellant contends that Abileah fails to teach or suggest a
random-directional white diffusing film having a substantially flat surface
directly stuck to a front substrate (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that
Abileah’s diffuser 21 is not directly attached to substrate 13 (i.e., the first
substrate), but rather is attached via film 17 (App. Br. 8). Appellant further
contends that Abileah’s film 17 or laminate of film 17 and diffuser 21 is not
a random diffuser with a flat rear surface (App. Br. 8). Appellant argues that
Abileah’s film 17 collimates and does not diffuse light (App. Br. 8), and the
rear of film 17 is faceted such that the film 17 or the laminate of film 17 and
diffuser 21 is not flat or smooth (App. Br. 9).
4
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

Appellant further argues that there is no motivation to combine
Abileah’s diffuser in other displays, such as Iijima’s or Hirano’s (App. Br. 5-
6). Appellant contends that general knowledge in the art does not lead to
adding Abileah’s front diffuser in other displays (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant
argues that there is no expectation (i.e., reasonable expectation of success)
that combining Abileah’s diffuser with Iijima’s LCD might provide any
specific collimating or diffusing aspects (App. Br. 7).

ISSUES
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellant, we
address the following issues:
1. Did Appellant show that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that
Abileah’s film 17 constitutes “another random-directional white
diffusing film” disposed between the first substrate and the polarizing
film, wherein the another white diffusing film has a substantially flat
and substantially smooth surface directly stuck to the first substrate as
recited in claim 48? We answer this question in the negative.
2. Did Appellant show that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that
Abileah’s disclosure provides a reason to combine the film 17 with
Iijima’s device in view of Hirano’s liquid crystal display? We answer
this question in the negative.
3. Did Appellant show that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding a
reasonable expectation that using Abileah’s film 17 in Iijima’s device
in view of Hirano’s liquid crystal display would have successfully
collimated or diffused light? We answer this question in the negative.

5
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
For a prima facie case of obviousness all the claim features must be
taught or suggested by the applied prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985
(CCPA 1974). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Obviousness does not require an
absolute predictability of success, all that is required under § 103 is a
reasonable expectation of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04
(Fed. Cir. 1988). The presence or absence of a “reasonable expectation of
success” is a pure question of fact. Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.,
464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Patent and Trademark
Office applies to the claim terms the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
1. Claim 48 recites, in relevant part,
another random-directional white diffusing film is disposed
between the first substrate and the polarizing film, wherein this other
white diffusing film has a substantially flat and substantially smooth
surface directly stuck to the first substrate, so that reflection of
6
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

incident light on the first substrate is reduced and transmission of
incident light through the first substrate is improved
(Claim 48).
2. Appellant’s Specification does not define the phrase “random-
directional white diffusing film.”
3. The Specification discloses that a white diffusing film has
“characteristics of allowing circularly polarized light to pass
therethrough substantially as the circularly polarized light, and having
a substantially equal transmittance for light components at respective
wavelengths in the wavelength range of visible light” (Spec. 7).
4. The Specification further states that “[t]he white diffusing film may
be made of a complex substance comprised of resin beads” (Spec. 9).
5. Appellant’s white diffusing film may also have a plurality of
projections and depressions formed on the surface thereof, causing a
portion of light incident on the surface thereof to undergo diffuse
reflection and remaining portions of the light to be transmitted
therethrough, and the projections and depressions formed on the
surface may be formed in a shape approximating a quadratic curve
(Spec. 9).
6. Appellant’s Figure 6 shows a white diffusing film having a flat
surface and a surface with projections and depressions (Figure 10;
Spec. 26-27).
7. Appellant discloses that providing the surface of the white diffusing
film with projections and depressions permits control of the
diffusibility and surface reflectivity of the white diffusing film (Spec.
21).
7
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

8. A white diffusing film is also disclosed a transmitting and reflecting
linearly polarized light (Spec. 35).
9. Iijima discloses a display device having two modes of display (col. 1,
ll. 10-12).
10. Iijima discloses that the display device uses a light diffusing layer (30
or 150) (col. 4, l. 66, col. 9, ll. 13-26; Figures 2 and 4).
11. Iijima discloses that the light diffusing layer may be a resin or
polymer in which micro-particles or micro-pearls are dispersed (col.
7, ll. 42-44, col. 9, ll. 59-61).
12. Iijima discloses that since the light is diffused through the diffusing
layer 150, it is white in all directions (col. 5, ll. 41-44).
13. Iijima discloses that the device may use Twisted Nematic (TN) or
Super-Twisted Nematic (STN) liquid crystal display panels (col. 1, ll.
15-18; col. 4, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 43-45).
14. Abileah discloses liquid crystal displays having an enlarged viewing
area (col. 1, ll. 5-6).
15. Abileah discloses that the liquid crystal display has “a film means for
substantially enlarging the effective viewing zone of the liquid crystal
display for providing substantial uniformity of illumination thereto
with respect to contrast ratio and color uniformity, and wherein said
film means has a plurality of optical facets therein” (col. 4, ll. 47-52).
16. Abileah discloses an optical film 17 includes a plurality of facets 19
disposed on one surface thereof, while the film’s opposite surface is
substantially flat in nature (col. 10, ll. 18-21; Figure 4).
8
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

17. Abileah discloses that the facets 19 may face toward or away from
liquid crystal layer 9 (Figure 1(a) and 2; col. 10, ll. 24-30; col. 14, ll.
33-42).
18. The facets 19 provide a refracting or dispersing effect on the light
exiting polarizer 15 when the facets 19 face the liquid crystal layer 9
(Abileah, col. 10, ll. 37-40; Figure 1(a)).
19. Abileah further discloses that film 17 acts to both collimate the
ambient light to reduce reflection off the display panel, and refract the
backlight rays after they proceed through the liquid crystal layer (col.
10, ll. 54-56).
20. Abileah discloses that diffuser 21 is optional such that it may or may
not be used with the optical film 17 (col. 10, ll. 57-61; col. 13, ll. 32-
36).
21. Abileah discloses that the optical film 17 substantially enlarges the
viewing angle and increases its uniformity with respect to resolution,
ambient light reflection, and inversion (col. 10, ll. 61-65).
22. Film 17 may be either exterior or interior of polarizer 15 and still
provide the improved optical characteristics of FF 15 (Abileah, col.
10, ll. 66-67, col. 11, ll. 1-3).
23. “Exterior”, in the context of the Abileah disclosure, is defined as “the
surface or side furthest from the liquid crystal material” (Abileah, col.
7, ll. 3-5).
24. In light of Abileah’s definition of “exterior”, FF 22 indicates that film
17 may be positioned such that it is in direct contact with transparent
substrate 13 (i.e., interior polarizer layer 15) (Figures 1(a) and 2).
9
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

25. Abileah discloses that facets 19 of the film 17 optically alter the
reflected collimated light wherein the degree of reflection depends on
index of the oil or adhesive between the film 17 and the polarizer 15
(or substrate 13) as well as the optical design of the facets (col. 12, ll.
66-67, col. 13, ll. 1-4).
26. Abileah’s facets 19 when facing toward the liquid crystal layer 9 as in
Figure 1(a), “refract to some extent the collimated light emitted from
polarizer 15 thereby scattering the directionality of such light so that
the light is no longer collimated due to the effect of the facets” (col.
13, ll. 6-11).
27. Abileah discloses that “optical film 17 including facets 19 and
optional diffuser 21 provide the viewer of the display with very high
contrast ratios at extreme viewing angles, low ambient light
reflectivity, high resolution, little or no color shifting, and
substantially no gray scale inversion” (col. 13, ll. 32-36).
28. Abileah discloses that the Figure 2 embodiment with the facets 19
facing away from the liquid crystal 9 and toward the viewer
collimates the light exiting polarizer 15 such that the viewing
characteristics are not as good as when the facets 19 face the liquid
crystal layer 9 (col. 14, ll. 33-51). In other words, a portion of the
incident light is refracted by the facets and a portion of the incident
light is transmitted and reflected by the display so as to be collimated
upon exiting the display.
29. Abileah discloses that the optical film 17 may be used in a “super-
twisted” nematic LCD display (col. 13, ll. 56-60).
10
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

30. Abileah’s film 17 reduces ambient light reflections with respect to
specular, diffused, and diffused normal reflections and collimates the
ambient light toward the panel (i.e., transmits and channels the light
toward the panel) (col. 23, ll. 44-53).
31. Hirano was cited by the Examiner as teaching embodiments with a
reflector on the viewer-side of the second substrate (Ans. 7). The
combination of Hirano with Iijima is not contested by Appellant (App.
Br. generally).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Claim Features Taught or Suggested by the References
We begin our analysis by construing the disputed claim phrase. The
disputed claim phrase begins by reciting a “random-directional white
diffusing film” that has a “substantially flat and substantially smooth surface
directly stuck to the first substrate” (FF 1). Appellant does not explicitly
define what is meant by “random-directional white diffusing film” in the
Specification (FF 2). However, the Specification describes that a white
diffusing film transmits circularly or linearly polarized light and it may be
made of a film of beads in a resin or have a plurality of projections and
depressions formed in a surface of the film causing a portion of the light to
undergo diffuse reflections and the remaining portions to be transmitted (FF
3-8).
The Specification further describes that the white diffusing film may
have a flat surface and a surface that has projections and depressions formed
thereon (FF 6).
11
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

Based on these findings, we determine that “random-directional white
diffusing film” includes a film that transmits polarized light having at least
one flat surface and may have projections and depressions formed on a
surface of the film or beads dispersed in the film so that the film causes a
portion of the light to undergo diffuse reflections and remaining portions of
light to be transmitted.
Based on this claim construction, we agree with the Examiner that
Abileah’s film 17 reasonably corresponds to the claimed “random-
directional white diffusing film.” Abileah discloses that film 17 has a flat
surface and contains a faceted side (i.e., projections and depressions) (FF
16). The faceted side of film 17 may face toward or away from the liquid
crystal layer 9 and the film 17 may be either exterior or interior the polarizer
layer (i.e., either directly on first substrate or directly on the polarizer) (FF
17, 22-24). Abileah further discloses that diffuser 21 is optional (FF 19). In
other words, Abileah discloses that film 17 may be positioned flat side down
(i.e., facets 19 facing away from the liquid crystal layer 9) on the interior of
the polarizer layer 15 (i.e., the polarizer layer 15 closer to the viewer). As
such, the flat side of the optical surface would be directly adhered to the first
substrate.
Moreover, Abileah discloses that film 17 reduces reflection of
incident light on the first substrate and transmits light (including polarized
light) therethrough (FF 25, 26, and 28), the same functions claimed by
Appellant (FF 1). Abileah discloses that the facets 19 scatter the
directionality of the light so that the light is no longer collimated (FF 26).
Furthermore, when the facets 19 of film 17 face away from the LCD
material (i.e., toward the viewer), the facets transmit a portion of the incident
12
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

light (i.e., the light that is reflected by the display, polarized by polarizer 15
and ultimately collimated) and refract/reflect a portion of the incident light
(FF 25, 28). Accordingly, we determine that Abileah’s film 17 functions as a
white diffusing film because it reduces reflection of the incident light and
improves transmission of the light through the film as claimed by Appellant.
In light of the above claim construction, we determine that Abileah’s
film 17 reasonably corresponds to Appellant’s “random-directional white
diffusing film” that is disposed between the first substrate and the polarizing
film such that the white diffusing film has a substantially flat and
substantially smooth surface directly stuck to the first substrate as recited in
claim 48. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that Abileah does not teach
the disputed claim feature is unpersuasive.
Issue 2: Motivation and Issue 3: Reasonable Expectation of Success
Appellant’s argument that there is no reason for combining Abileah’s
film 17 with the display of Iijima in view of Hirano is not well taken. Iijima
discloses that the display device may use super-twisted nematic liquid
crystal display panels (FF 13). Abileah discloses that the film 17 may be
used in super-twisted nematic displays (FF 29). Abileah further discloses
that the film 17 enlarges the viewing angle and provides other benefits to the
display (FF 15, 16, and 21).
Based on these explicit disclosures of the references, we determine
that Abileah and Iijima provide a reason for combining Abileah’s film 17
with Iijima’s display: to enlarge the viewing angle in a super-twisted
nematic display. Both Iijima and Abileah disclose that the displays use a
super-twisted nematic mode and Abileah explicitly discloses that film 17 is
applicable to super-twisted liquid crystal displays (FF 13 and 29).
13
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Abileah’s
film 17 with Iijima’s super-twisted liquid crystal display to enlarge the
viewing angle.
For similar reasons, we find that Iijima’s and Abileah’s use of same
type of display (i.e., super-twisted nematic liquid crystal displays) provides a
reasonable expectation that using Abileah’s film 17 in Iijima’s liquid crystal
display would have successfully enlarged the viewing angle. Appellant’s
arguments do not persuade us that such a reasonable expectation is lacking.

CLAIMS 65, 66, AND 67
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant argues that Abileah’s laminate of film 17 and diffuser 21 is
not flat (claim 65), is not a monolayer (claim 66), and does not contain beads
dispersed in resin (claim 67) (App. Br. 11-12).
Though noting that the phrase “the white diffusing film” in claims 65-
67 may be construed to refer to either the “one white diffusing film” or
“another random-directional white diffusing film” of claim 48, the Examiner
notes he construes “the white diffusing film” to refer to the “another
random-directional white diffusing film” (Ans. 3). Based on this
construction the Examiner notes that Abileah’s disclosures would have
rendered the subject matter of claims 65-67 obvious (Ans. 21-22).

ISSUE
Did Appellant show that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining
that Iijima in view of Abileah and Hirano would have rendered obvious the
subject matter of claims 65-67? We answer this question in the negative.
14
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d at 1364. The Patent and Trademark Office applies to the claim
terms the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
Specification. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.

FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
32. Claim 48 recites “one white diffusing film” and “another random-
directional white diffusing film” (Claim 48).
33. Claims 65-67 recite “the white diffusing film” (Claims 65-67).
34. Appellant’s Specification discloses a “Sixth Embodiment” wherein
one surface of the white diffusing layer is flat and the opposite surface
has projections and depressions formed thereon (Spec. 26-27; Figure
10).
35. Appellant’s Specification further describes that a flat, monolayer
white diffusing layer 22 made of beads and resin may be adhered to
the second substrate 2 (Figure 8, Spec. 23).
36. The Examiner finds that Iijima discloses a white diffusing film 30
that meets the features recited in claims 48 and 49 with regard to the
“one white diffusing film” (i.e., the first white diffusing film recited in
claim 48) (Ans. 4).
15
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

37. Appellant does not contest that Iijima discloses a white diffusing film
that corresponds to the “one white diffusing film” on the second
substrate (App. Br. generally).
38. Iijima discloses a light diffusing plate 30, which appears to be a flat,
monolayer made of resin and beads (col. 9, ll. 56-65; Figures 4 and 7).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner construes “the white diffusing” film of claims 65-67 as
referring to “another random-directional white diffusing film” of claim 48
(Ans. 3). With respect to claim 65 and 66, we agree that as the Examiner
has construed “the white diffusing film” Abileah discloses the claim
features. Specifically, the Examiner determines that Abileah’s film 17 (i.e.,
corresponding to “another random-directional white diffusing film”) would
have rendered obvious positioning a white diffusing film on a first substrate
in Iijima’s display device. Abileah’s film 17 is disclosed a having a flat side
and being a monolayer (FF 16), which meets the features recited in claims
65 and 66. We construe Appellant’s claim 65 as merely requiring a single
side be flat. This construction is consistent with the sixth embodiment in
Appellant’s Specification (FF 34).
As the Examiner has recognized on page 3 of the Answer, claims 64-
67 further limit “the white diffusing film” but do not specify which of the
two white diffusing films are being further limited. We note that the phrase
“the white diffusing layer” in claims 65-67 may reasonably be construed as
referring to the “one white diffusing film” (i.e., the first white diffusing film
in the claims) rather than the “another random-directional white diffusing
film” as the Examiner has apparently construed the claims (Ans. 3). Claims
16
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

65-67 merely recite “the white diffusing film” which may reasonably refer to
the “one white diffusing film” (i.e., the first claimed white diffusing film in
claim 48). Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellant’s statement that the
“Examiner’s interpretation [of “the white diffusing film” recitation in claims
65-67] is the only reasonable interpretation” (Reply Br. 1).
Rather, when applying the broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the Specification of claims 65-67, it is plainly determined that Iijima
alone satisfies these recited claim features. Specifically, Iijima’s film 30
appears to be a flat, monolayer made of beads in resin (FF 38). Accordingly,
we find that Iijima’s white diffusing plate 30 satisfies all the features of
claims 65-67.

DECISION
We affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 48-51, 55, 59, and 62-67 over
Iijima in view of Abileah and Hirano.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

17
Appeal 2008-4619
Application 10/349,019

PL Initial:
sld

WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
18