Ex Parte Shin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2012

11185511 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JIN-SOO SHIN, YOUNG-JAE LEE, and JEOUNG-GWEN LEE
____________

Appeal 2009-014986
Application 11/185,511
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014986
Application 11/185,511

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-21, 23, 24, and 26-36. (App. Br. 5.) Claims 3, 6, 8,
9, 22, and 25 were cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention includes “a backlight assembly and a display
device having the backlight assembly.” (Spec. pg. 1:10-11.)

Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A backlight assembly comprising:
a light guide plate having a recessed stepped portion formed at a
corner of the light guide plate;
an optical sheet disposed over the light guide plate; and
a receiving container that receives the light guide plate and the optical
sheet, the receiving container including a bottom plate, a first sidewall, a
second sidewall adjacent to the first sidewall, a third sidewall facing the first
sidewall, a fourth sidewall facing the second sidewall, wherein the first,
second, third, and fourth sidewalls extend upwardly from edge portions of
the bottom plate, the receiving container further including a first light guide
plate fixing portion having a horizontal thickness substantially same as one
of a horizontal thickness of the first, second, third, or fourth sidewalls such
that the horizontal thickness is a thickness in a recessed direction of the
recessed stepped portion wherein the first light guide plate fixing portion is
aligned with the recessed stepped portion of the light guide plate,
Appeal 2009-014986
Application 11/185,511

3
wherein the first light guide plate fixing portion is integrally formed
with the receiving container, and a portion of the receiving container is bent
to form the first light guide plate fixing portion.

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23,
24, 26, 28-31, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lee
„154 (U.S. 6,950,154 B2; Sept. 27, 2005, Filing date Feb. 28, 2003) (Ans. 3-
6.)
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable based on Lee „154 and Lee „471 (U.S. Patent Publication
No. 2001/0003471 A1; June 14, 2001, Filing date Dec. 11, 2000) (Ans. 6-8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based on Lee „154 and Jeong (U.S. 6,595,651 B2; July 22,
2003, Filing date Sept. 17, 2001) (Ans. 8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based on Lee „154 and Park (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2004/0160549 A1; Aug. 19, 2004, Filing date Dec. 24, 2003) (Ans. 8-10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based on Lee „154, Lee „471, and Cho (U.S. 6,667,780 B2;
Dec. 23, 2003, Filing date Feb. 8, 2002) (Ans. 10-11.)

ISSUE
Appellants‟ responses to the Examiner‟s positions present the
following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Lee „154 discloses “a receiving
container including . . . a first sidewall, a second sidewall adjacent to the
Appeal 2009-014986
Application 11/185,511

4
first sidewall, a third sidewall facing the first sidewall, a fourth sidewall
facing the second sidewall . . . and . . . a first light guide plate fixing portion
having a horizontal thickness substantially same as one of a horizontal
thickness of the first, second, third, or fourth sidewalls . . .” as recited in
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 20 and
24?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Lee „154 discloses that “a portion of
the receiving container is bent to form the first light guide plate fixing
portion,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 20, and as similarly recited
in independent claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Issue - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-21, 23, 24, and 26-36
Appellants assert that FIGs. 2 and 3 of Lee „154 do not disclose “a
receiving container including a first sidewall, a second sidewall adjacent to
the first sidewall, a third sidewall facing the first sidewall, a fourth sidewall
facing the second sidewall, and a first light guide plate fixing portion having
a horizontal thickness substantially same as one of a horizontal thickness of
the first, second, third, or fourth sidewall, such that the horizontal thickness
is a thickness in a recessed direction of the recessed stepped portion” as
arranged in independent Claims 1 and 20, and similarly in independent claim
24. (App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner, however, explains
that the thickness of the light guide plate fixing portion (e.g., 581, 582, 583,
582 shown in Fig. 3) is substantially the same as the thickness of the
sidewall when the thickness is measured in a direction into the top surface of
FIG. 9 or the “First Recessed Direction” as labeled. (Ans. 4 and 11-13.)
The Examiner also explains that this direction that he selected to measure
Appeal 2009-014986
Application 11/185,511

5
the thickness qualifies as a “recessed direction,” as required by the claims
because the light guide plate is recessed or indented in the selected direction.
(Id.) We find the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
meaning consistent with the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), may properly rely on the direction into the top surface
of FIG. 9 as the claimed recessed direction. Moreover, Appellants do not
dispute or even address the thickness measurement in the direction selected
by the Examiner; they instead refer to the thickness that is measured in
another direction. (App. Br. 14-15.) For these reasons and the reasons
expressed by the Examiner, we find that the thickness of the plate fixing
portion and a recited sidewall is substantially the same.
Appellants assert that Lee „154 also does not disclose “a portion of the
receiving container is bent to form the first light guide plate fixing portion . .
. .” (App. Br. 16.) As explained by the Examiner, however, the claim term
“bent” may be interpreted as “curved” and the “receiving container (500) is
curved on all sides of each fixing portion . . . .” (Ans. 13.) Accordingly, we
find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable meaning
consistent with the Specification, Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054, may properly
rely on Lee „154‟s curved portions of the receiving container as the claimed
bent portions and that Lee „154 discloses that a portion of the receiving
container is bent to form the first light guide plate fixing portion. Also, as
for the product-by-process limitation of “a portion of the receiving container
is bent to form the first light guide plate fixing portion” in claims 1 and 20,
Appellants‟ arguments are not persuasive for the additional reason that
patentability is based on the claimed product and not its method of
production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appeal 2009-014986
Application 11/185,511

6
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejections of independent
claims 1, 20, and 24, as well as the claims that depend from them because
Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for the
dependent claims. (See App. Br. 14-18.)

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
10-21, 23, 24, and 26-36.
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

dw