Ex Parte Tani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14416270 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/416,270 01/21/2015 Yusuke Tani
21254 7590 07/31/2018
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
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.
FPA-2012-0256-NEC-PCT-US- 5668
EXAMINER
LE, BAO-LUAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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 YUSUKE TANI
and YOSHINOBU MORIY A
Appeal2017-009540
Application 14/416,270 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BRIAND. RANGE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Noda2 in view of Masuda. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is said to be NEC Display Solutions, LTD. Appeal Brief
dated January 31, 2017 ("App. Br."), at 1.
2 US 2009/0027627 Al, published January 29, 2009 ("Noda").
3 US 2010/0328617 Al, published December 30, 2010 ("Masuda").
Appeal2017-009540
Application 14/416,270
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A light source apparatus comprising:
a light emitter that emits light;
a reflector that reflects outgoing light emitted from said light
emitter in a specific direction; and
a light shield that comprises metal and blocks out light, and is
disposed on a lateral side and/or at a back of said reflector,
wherein a plurality of concave portions or convex portions are
formed at least in a partial area of said light shield.
App. Br. 8.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Noda discloses a light source apparatus comprising,
inter alia, light shield 27 that blocks light. Final 3; 4 Ans. 4 (citing Noda ,r 125). 5
The Examiner finds that the light shield has a diffusion portion or reflection
reducing structure 27e but finds that Noda does not teach that the diffusion portion
includes a plurality of concave or convex portions as recited in claim 1. Final 3
( citing Noda ,r 126).
The Examiner finds Masuda discloses a metal diffusion plate having a
plurality of concave or convex portions. Final 3 (citing Masuda ,r,r 39, 43; Masuda
Figs. 3-10). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Noda and Masuda to increase the possibility of
diffused reflection of light as intended by Noda. Final 3 (citing Masuda ,r 44).
The Appellants argue that the plurality of concave or convex portions
disclosed in Masuda are minute reflective structures 210. App. Br. 6. The
4 Final Office Action dated June 21, 2016.
5 Examiner's Answer dated June 2, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-009540
Application 14/416,270
Appellants argue that Masuda' s minute rejl ective structures 210 and Noda' s
reflection reducing structure 27e are "opposite in function of each other such that a
person would never have desired to combine elements that produce the opposite
function." App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted); see also App. Br. 6 (arguing that
combining Noda and Masuda as proposed by the Examiner would render Noda
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose).
The Appellants point out that the Examiner, in the Advisory Action, finds
that "diffusive surface/structure always and inherently reduces the peak flux
density of the output light, i.e. reducing the reflection light in this case. The
combination of Noda and Masuda is desired because it produces softer diffused
reflected light from the light shield." App. Br. 6; see also Adv. Act. 2. 6 However,
the Appellants argue that "the Examiner's remarks appear not to be based on the
facts of the Application." App. Br. 6 ( emphasis omitted). In particular, the
Appellants argue that "'producing a softer diffused reflected light from the light
shield' is not achieved or desired by combining a reference that teaches an element
that achieves light reflection [i.e., Masuda] with an element ... that reduces light
reflection [i.e., Noda]." App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds that the reflection reducing structure 27e of
Noda's light shield 27 can be a diffusion sheet, a felt sheet, or a low reflection
paint. Ans. 4 ( citing Noda ,r 126). The Examiner finds:
In optics, a diffuser is any device that diffuses or spreads out or
scatters light in some manner, to give soft light. . . . Diffuse reflection
is the reflection of light from a surface such that an incident ray is
reflected at many angles rather than at just one angle as in the case of
specular reflection ....
6 Advisory Action dated September 13, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-009540
Application 14/416,270
Reflective diffusers, in general, reduce reflection, i.e., giving a
soft light, by changing the flux density distribution, reducing the peak
flux density of the incident light in the mirrored reflection direction,
by the micro-structure of the reflective surface, i.e., scattering .... The
above diffusion sheet [disclosed in Noda] acts as any diffuser,
reducing reflection, i.e., giving a soft light, by reducing the peak flux
density of the incident light in the mirrored reflection direction, i.e.,
scattering.
Ans. 4 ( citations omitted).
The Examiner finds that Noda does not expressly describe the micro-
structure of the disclosed diffusion sheet. Ans. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds
that Masuda "teaches a typical micro-structure of a metal reflective diffusion
plate." Ans. 4--5 (citing Masuda ,r,r 39, 43; Masuda Figs. 3-10). The Examiner
finds that "[u]sing Masuda['s] metal diffusion plate in place of the diffusion sheet
in Noda produces the effect intended by Noda; because the metal diffusion plate of
Masuda is functionally equivalent of the diffusion sheet of Noda." Ans. 5.
The Appellants disagree that Masuda' s minute reflective structures 210
include a "'typical reflective diffuser."' Reply Br. 3. 7 The Appellants argue that
"Masuda teaches that 'the reflective surface of the array is worked so as to have a
mirror surface, and the exciting light entering the fluorescent layer 205 and
fluorescence emitted within the fluorescent layer 205 is reflected without being
almost attenuated."' Reply Br. 3 ( citing Masuda ,r 43). The Appellants also argue
that Masuda's reflective structures 210 improve the efficiency of the exciting light.
Reply Br. 3 ( citing Masuda ,r 54 ).
The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Masuda
discloses a fluorescent wheel comprising a fluorescent layer which is rotated by a
7 Reply Brief dated June 29, 2017.
4
Appeal2017-009540
Application 14/416,270
motor to emit selected fluorescence. Masuda ,r 3. Masuda Figure 2, reproduced
below, illustrates the disclosed fluorescent wheel. Masuda ,r 25.
Masuda Figure 2 is a cross-sectional view of the fluorescent
wheel illustrating reflection of light by the fluorescent wheel.
Masuda discloses that:
As shown in FIG. 2, by the array 210, a part of the light which
has entered the fluorescent layer 205 but has not been directly applied
to the fluorescent substance 213 is also reflected repeatedly by the
projections 223, thereby increasing a possibility of being applied to
the fluorescent substances 213. The fluorescence emitted laterally
from the fluorescent substances 213 is repeatedly reflected by the
sides of the projections 223, thereby increasing the possibility of
being emitted outward from the outer surface of the fluorescent layer
205.
Masuda ,r 44 (italics added); see also Masuda ,r 54 (teaching that the array of
minute reflective structures 210 increases the possibility that exciting light will be
applied to fluorescent substances 213, thereby improving the use efficiency of the
exciting light). Thus, it is the repeated reflection by the projections 223 of
reflective structures 210 that causes fluorescence to be emitted and the efficiency
of the exciting light to be improved.
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports
a finding that projections 223 ofMasuda's reflective structures 210 produce the
5
Appeal2017-009540
Application 14/416,270
effect intended by Noda, i.e., diffused light. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to use Masuda's reflective structures 210 in Noda's
diffusion sheet.
For the reasons set forth above, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of
any of dependent claims 2-16. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2-16
also is sustained.
C. DECISION
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6