Ex Parte SHIMIZU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14493826 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/493,826 09/23/2014
23850 7590 09/21/2018
KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP
1420 K Street, N.W.
4th Floor
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masato SHIMIZU
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.
140303 1270
EXAMINER
PASKO, NICHOLAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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 MASATO SHIMIZU 1
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and MONTE T. SQUIRE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Hosiden Corporation ("Shimizu") timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-9 and 16-20. 3
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm-in-part.
1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a), is the real party in interest, identified as Hosiden
Corporation. (Appeal Brief, filed 20 July 2017 ("Br."), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 21 December 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
3 Remaining copending claims 10-15 have been withdrawn from
consideration by the Examiner (FR 1, § 5a), and are not before us.
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
A. Introduction 4
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to optical components designed
to improve, e.g., for wearers of polarized sunglasses, the visibility of display
devices, such as LED displays, including touch screen displays, that emit
linearly polarized light. The difficulty in such situations is that when the
angle of polarization of light emitted by the display screen is perpendicular
to the angle of maximum transmission of the polarized sunglasses, the
screen will appear dark to the wearer of the sunglasses. According to
the '826 Specification, prior art solutions to this problem include providing a
phase plate configured to provide a retardation of 4000 nm or more in front
of the display, producing circularly or elliptically polarized light that has
components that can be viewed through polarized sunglasses at any angle.
(Spec. 1 [0005]-[0006].)
As illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced on the following page, the
Specification discloses a display device L5 comprising display part 100 that
emits linearly polarized light, optional touchscreen sensor 300, and optical
component 200, that is viewed through polarizing plate P ( e.g., polarizing
sunglasses).
4 Application 14/493,826, Optical component, touchscreen panel, and
display device, filed 23 September 2014, claiming the benefit of an
application filed in Japan on 27 September 2013. We refer to the
'"826 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
1 , ..... -~~ 1 ic::~ ·1 ._ 2 ~
{Figure 1 is shown below}
•'- •" ... , ... 0 •" -.,. •• • , ... • » V ,• ,. V, '• L ,,.- •' '• •• , ... • ~
''1 '~'; L 111
I,,,',,. ~:
0
1:, ........ 1,,_ .....•••••• _ J . ··:::::::::········' l i ... ·tour.,·, ~,u"tx,·n p;i,·;:J
, -..'-''' ·'···'-'-'-'''·'·'····'-'-U.• ..•• ccu_.._.._,.,., •• ,,,,.._.._.._.._,_.c,u,._,,,.,.c,,._,_.._.._.._,,, . ', t
r 200
2201
: .............. .... ~ ..... .-... -, ~ ........... , ... , :. .... : ~ -- l -~: ...... ·,,.,.·.,· , .. ·:··.,. ,·.,:·
'
:, ~ ..... ::.., •' ~ ~~~;():d '--·~."~~ ...... ,t, ~ • ~- •
!. dJ C-<2C .......... ! j ...... ········ ......... 1,:~,.,c'.h .:~"'.'~.~·'::'. .......... ··· ......... f~·--·v, ..... 300
t 1 r 1 1 r tL .· ! ....................................................... ··i I
t di:,.)'')i q::fft (i?:,e~;,fa,·nd\'''} ("' ···· '•, ....... ,,. 100 /
!.,,..,.... .................................................. ,.,.,..., ...... .........-.-.-,,.,........-.-.-.-.-.-,-,--""'"'"'..,........,.-~ ............... ,.. ........... ..,.,...,...,, .... ...J: -~
{Figure 1 shows display device L with touch screen panel T and
optical component 200 in cross section ( annotations added:
Boxes "Cl" on left indicate roughly the scope of the claims)}
Optical component 200 comprises resin part 210 and phase plate 220.
Resin part 210 is said to be "uncontrolled with respect to phase difference"
(Spec. 2 [0008]), but nonetheless birefringent (and thus produces an optical
retardation) due to, e.g., resin flow during the molding process
(id. at [0007]). Phase plate 220 is disposed between the display part 100 and
resin part 210 (id. at [0009]), and has three to five times the optical
retardation of the resin part 210 (id. at [0010]). As a result, in the words of
the Specification, "the optical component can suppress the possibility of
occurrence of iridescent uneveness and blackout in displayed images of the
display part when viewed through a polarizing plate ( such as polarized
sunglasses or a panel of electronic equipment.)" (Id.) Desirably, the optical
retardation of the phase plate is large, e.g., 3000 nm or more, or 10,000 nm
or more. (Id. at 4 [0022].) The Specification explains that, "with increasing
retardation, ... , the light that has traveled through the phase plate 220
3
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
contains more wavelengths in which circularly polarized light, elliptically
polarized light, and linearly polarized light exist throughout the visible
spectrum." (Id.) Thus, the light exiting optical component 200 contains
components polarized in directions that can be observed through polarizing
plate P (e.g., the viewer's sunglasses). The Specification teaches further that
"[t]he resin part and the phase plate described above may be [s]paced apart
from each other. Further, the above phase plate may be fixed to a sensor or
a display part so as to be positioned on the emitting direction side of the
display part." (Id. at 7 [0032].)
In some embodiments, a touch sensor 300 "may be disposed between
the phase plate [220] of the optical component [200] and the display
part [100] or between the resin part [210] of the optical component [200] and
the phase plate [220] of the optical component [200]." (Id. at 3 [0012].)
According to the Specification, touch sensor 300 is optically isotropic (i.e.,
non-polarizing). (Id. at 4 [0023].)
Claim 1 is representative of the claims 6 to "optical components", and
reads:
An optical component [200] comprising:
a resin part [210] having translucency,
the resin part being configured to be disposed on an
emitting direction side of a display part [100] capable
of emitting linearly polarized light,
6 Claims to optical components are independent claim 1 and corresponding
dependent claim 5, and remaining independent claim 2, and corresponding
dependent claims 3, 4, and 6. The remaining claims, which depend from
either of independent claims 1 or 2, are drawn specifically to touchscreen
panels. A chart showing the dependencies of the claims is provided in an
appendix to this Opinion.
4
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
the resin part [210] being a molded article of resin
material partially having birefringence due to molecular
orientation and/or photoelasticity of the resin material,
or alternatively the resin part being an extruded plate
of resin material having birefringence due to an
extruding process of the resin material; and
a phase plate [220] configured to be disposed between
the display part [100] and the resin part [210],
the phase plate [220] having a retardation that is three to
five times larger than a retardation of the resin part [210],
wherein the phase plate [220] is fixed to a rear face of
the resin part [210].
(Claims App., Br. 53; some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and
bracketed labels to Figure 1 added.)
Claim 2 is similar to claim 1, but requires that the retardation of the
phase plate is at least 3,000 nm.
Claim 7 is representative of the claims to touchscreens and reads:
A touchscreen panel [T] comprising:
the optical component [200] according to claim 1; and
a sensor [300] capable of detecting an approach of a detection
target,
wherein the sensor [300] is configured to be disposed
between the phase plate [220] of the optical
component [200] and the display part [100].
(Claims App., Br. 54--55; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels
to Figure 1 added.)
Claim 16 depends from claim 7 and requires that sensor [300] is
optically isotropic. (Id. at 55.) Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and requires
that "the touchscreen panel is configured such that only the optically
isotropic member is disposed between the optical component and display
5
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
part." (Id. at 56.) Claims 8, 17, and 20 depend from claim 2 and parallel the
recitations of claims 7, 16, and 19, respectively.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 7, 8 :
A. Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ I02(a)(l) and
(a)(2) in view ofMukoyama. 9
Al. Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Mukoyama.
B. Claims 7-9 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
in view of the combined teachings of Mukoyama and
Matsumoto. 10
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Claims 1-6: anticipation and obviousness in view of Mukoyama
The Examiner finds that Mukoyama, in Figure 1, reproduced on the
following page, describes an optical component that meets the limitations of
claim 1.
7 Examiner's Answer mailed 2 October 2017 ("Ans.").
8 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
9 Yasushi Sasaki et al., Image display device, WO 2014/123209 Al
(14 August 2014). (We rely on the WIPO Patentscope machine-assisted
translation and the human partial translation of paragraphs [0010]-[0017], in
the record. We follow the Examiner and Shimizu in referring to this
document as "Mukoyama," the last-named inventor.)
1° Kenichi Matsumoto and Koji Tanabe, Touch panel, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2008/0204610 Al (2008).
6
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
Mukoyama Figure 1 ( annotations added) 11
} l
,·
I
' i
I , I
l ' \
.;q.h. I
\ .................. ~
' ~
.,~--.,.,)
{Mukoyama Figure 1 shows display 1 with touch sensor 6. Annotations in
quotes use the terminology of the present application.}
More particularly, the Examiner finds (FR 2-3) that Mukoyama
describes a "high retardation resin film" 12 and a "low retardation film," 13
both on the viewing side of viewing side polarizer 8. The positions of the
films are said not to be particularly limited as long as the high retardation
film is on the light source side relative to the low retardation film.
11 Reproduced from annotated Figure 1, filed by Shimizu
on 15 November 2016, with further added annotations.
12 The high retardation film has a retardation of between 3,000 nm
and 150,000 nm. (Mukoyama, human partial translation, sentence in [0014]
bridging 2-3.)
13 The low retardation film has a retardation of less than 3,000 nm
(Mukoyama, human partial translation 3, 11. 3--4).
7
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
(Mukoyama [0015]. 14) The Examiner concludes (FR 2-3) that Mukoyama
discloses a phase plate (the high retardation film) and a resin film (the low
retardation film). The Examiner concludes further that, "by providing the
phase plate on the rear side of the resin part, it is 'fixed' to the rear face
either directly without an intervening layer or through intervening layers."
(FR 3, 11. 19-21.)
The Examiner also finds that Mukoyama does not teach "that the
phase plate is fixed to and directly contacting a rear face of the resin part
directly without any intervening plates or layers." (FR 8, 11. 7-9; emphasis
added.) However, the Examiner reasons that this "alternative interpretation"
is not what is claimed. (Id. at 1. 8.) Moreover, the Examiner holds, that
because Mukoyama recognizes that the locations of the phase plate and resin
plate are not critical as long as the phase plate is between the display part
and the resin part, it would have been obvious "to modify the optical
component of Mukoyama such that the phase plate is fixed to and directly
contacting a rear face of the resin part" because that would have been a mere
rearrangement of elements without modifying the operation of the device,
and would have required only routine skill in the art. (Id. at 11. 15-22.)
The Examiner finds further that Mukoyama describes optical
components in Table 2, Example 5, with a high retardation film 115 having a
14 The Examiner switches between the human translation and the machine
translation for certain phrases (e.g., the term "viewing side" is from the
machine translation, where the human translation provides the term "visual
contact side").
15 Also described at Mukoyama [0091].
8
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
retardation of 10,200 nm, and a low retardation film E 16 having a retardation
of2300 nm (retardation ratio of 4.4); and Example 9, with a high retardation
film 3 17 having a retardation of 5200 nm and a low retardation film D 18
having a retardation of 1500 nm (retardation ratio of 3.5). (FR 3, 11. 8-11.)
Thus, the Examiner concludes, the relative retardation of the phase plate and
the resin part required by claim 1 is met.
Shimizu urges that the Examiner has not carried the burden of
demonstrating that Mukoyama teaches that the phase plate is fixed to the
rear face of the resin part as claimed. (Br. 39--40 (claim 1, anticipation);
id. at 42--43 (claim 2, anticipation); id. at 46--47 (claim 1, obviousness);
id. at 49-50 (claim 2, obviousness). Shimizu offers a counter example in
which elements are placed on a table in comparable positions, pointing out
that such a placement does not necessarily mean that the first element is
"fixed" to the second element. (Id. at 39--40, 42--43.)
While the Examiner's analysis is terse, given the context of the
disclosure of Mukoyama-trying to solve the same problem as Shimizu,
namely viewing an image display device ( e.g., a cellular telephone, car
navigation, or digital camera: Mukoyama [0002]) when the viewer is
wearing polarized sunglasses (id. at [0003]), we do not find Shimizu's
arguments persuasive of harmful error. While Mukoyama' s disclosures
could be applied to optical components merely placed on a table, such an
arrangement is not relevant to the practical image display devices of interest
16 Also described at Mukoyama [0102].
17 Also described at Mukoyama [0093].
18 Also described at Mukoyama [0101].
9
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
to Mukoyama and ordinary wearers of polarized sunglasses. As the
Examiner notes, "such a display would fall apart and be inoperable."
(Ans. 3, last sentence.) This observation holds true for the cellular
telephone, car navigation, and digital camera practical real-world examples
identified by Mukoyama, and it is also true for the hypothetical tabletop
example provided by Shimizu. The art of record, including the
Specification, teaches that the relative angular orientations of the polarizing
components are critical to the overall function of the display devices. Even
in an optical laboratory, the components would typically be held in place by
clamps on an optical rail or held magnetically to a table top----and thus be
"fixed" relative to one another. Moreover, as the Examiner points out, the
Specification does not provide a special definition of the terms "fixed" or
"fixed to" that requires one element be in contact with another. (FR, para.
bridging 17-18.) Particularly in view of the disclosures, noted supra at
page 4 in the introduction, that the phase plate and the resin part may be
separated from one another, we find no harmful error in the Examiner's
broad interpretation of the term "fixed," or the finding that every contested
limitation of claim 1 is fully met by, or the holding that those limitations
would have been obvious in view of Mukoyama.
Shimizu' s arguments regarding remaining claims 2---6 are merely
cumulative with the arguments discussed thus far, and are therefore not
persuasive of harmful error in either the finding of anticipation or the
holding of obviousness.
We affirm Rejections A and Al.
10
Appeal2018-001598
Application 14/493,826
Claims 7-9 and 16--20: obviousness in view of Mukoyama and Matsumoto
Shimizu' s arguments for patentability with respect to claims 7, 9, 16,
and 18 (Br. 32-34), and with respect to claims 8 and 17 (id. at 35-37) are
merely cumulative with the arguments raised against claim 1, regarding the
"fixed" limitation. We have found these arguments do not suffice to
demonstrate harmful error in the rejection of the independent claims, so we
affirm the rejections of dependent claims 7-9, 16, and 18.
Shimizu's arguments for the patentability of claims 19 and 20 are
mutually cumulative, so we need consider only the arguments with respect
to claim 19.
The Examiner finds that Matsumoto teaches, in Figure 1, below,
16
1'1 :;