Ex parte SHAW

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 1998

08315052 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 29, 1994.1
1
Paper No. 11
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JAMES E. SHAW
______________
Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,0521
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT and PATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 1. The
only other remaining claims in the application, claims 4 through
6, are allowed.
The claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for
illuminating a liquid crystal display. The apparatus consists
Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
2
of a lamp and an optical element placed behind the lamp to
reflect light toward the liquid crystal display.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus having a lamp side and a back side
comprising:
a lamp disposed near the lamp side and an optical element
disposed between the lamp and the back side; and,
the optical element having a [sic] element lamp side and an
element back side with reflective coatings on the element back
side and partially on the element lamp side and the optic [sic,
optical] element having a light transmissive characteristic, the
element lamp side further having an elevated region with no
reflective coatings thereon such that a light channeling path is
present which tends to direct light through the element lamp side
where said light is reflected off the element back side and exits
through the element lamp side.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Palmquist 2,379,741 July 3, 1945
Meijer 4,215,501 Aug. 5, 1980
The examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Palmquist in view of Meijer. The examiner
explains the rejection thusly:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Palmquist in view
of Meijer.
Palmquist discloses an illuminated apparatus
inherently having a lamp side and a back side
comprising an optical element (fig. 1) disposed
near the back side (10) comprising an element lamp
Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
3
side (a), an element back side with reflective
coatings (11) and partially on the element lamp
side (12), wherein the optic element has a light
transmissive characteristic (13), the element lamp
side (a) further having an elevated region (13)
with no reflective coatings thereon such that a
light channeling path (c) is present which tends
to direct light through the element lamp side
where the light is reflected off the element back
side (11) and exits through the element lamp side
(a). However, Palmquist does not disclose a lamp
disposed near the lamp side.
Meijer teaches the use of a lamp (306)
disposed near a lamp side of a reflective
optical apparatus (100,300) for the purpose of
illuminating the optical element.
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of
applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus of
Palmquist to include the light source disposed near
the lamp side of the apparatus as taught by
Meijer in order to illuminate the optical element.
(Final Rejection, pages 3-4)
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have determined that the applied prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness that has not been
rebutted by additional evidence from the appellant. Accordingly,
we will affirm the rejection of claim 1 on appeal.
It is our finding that Palmquist discloses an optical
element having a front side illuminated by both ambient light and
Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
4
an incident beam or ray of light. The element back side is
disclosed as a base or backing (10) having a reflective back
surface coating (11) thereon. The front side of Palmquist that
is illuminated by both ambient and incident beams or rays of
light from the lamp, also has a reflective binder coating of a
different color than the reflective coating on the element back
side. Note that the reflective coating (12) from the optical
element front side is interrupted by spheres (13), which spheres
by their location in the element front side reflective coating
make this coating only partially cover the element front side.
Turning to a consideration of the spheres (13), they provide the
optical element with elevated regions having no reflective
coatings thereon, such that a light channeling path as shown in
Figure 1 by ray trace c is provided. Note that as shown by ray
trace c, light in the channeling path is directed to the front or
incident light side (by an oncoming headlight) and reflected off
the element back side and exits through the element front side.
As noted above, Palmquist is disclosed as being illuminated both
by incident ambient light and by incident beams or rays of light
as provided by the headlights of approaching cars. In our view,
the structure of Palmquist when operated with approaching
automobiles having headlamps, as clearly disclosed, satisfies the
Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
5
limitations of the appealed claim. Nonetheless, the examiner
has cited Meijer which discloses, for instance in Figure 3,
illuminating a sign by lamps placed in front of the sign to shine
thereon. We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to place lights as disclosed by Meijer in front of the
optical element structure disclosed in Palmquist to illuminate
the optical element structure. Indeed, lighted highway signs are
ubiquitous. It is our view that there is ample suggestion to
illuminate the highway sign disclosed in Palmquist if Palmquist’s
disclosed automobiles are not considered to provide a lamp means
that illuminates Palmquist’s sign. Accordingly, there is clear
suggestion for the examiner’s combination of references under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant has argued there is no suggestion or motivation
for combining the two references. As noted above, it is our view
that the examiner has provided ample suggestion for the provision
of the lights of Meijer for illuminating the highway sign
disclosed in Palmquist. The appellant further argues that it is
not the object of the invention to provide a lamp to illuminate
the optical element. However, we must note that the examiner’s
rejection of the claim on appeal is not directed to the object of
the invention, but rather to the claimed subject matter itself.
Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
6
Furthermore, the appellant states that the optical element in his
invention is provided to reflect light in a direction back toward
the lamp. This is precisely the disclosure of Palmquist which
provides his optical element to reflect light back to the eyes of
the driver of the automobile that is illuminating the sign.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of the claim on
appeal has been affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
7
Rockwell International Corporation
Gregory G. Williams
400 Collins Road, NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52498
WFP/cam