Ex Parte Uehara

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2012

11410835 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TAKUYA UEHARA
____________

Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,8351
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 2, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. Claims 3-12 were cancelled during prosecution. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Application filed on Mar. 26, 2006 claiming benefit of JP 2005-127734
filed April 26, 2005. The Real Party in Interest is Funai Electric, Ltd.
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

2
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to a liquid crystal display
device and, more particularly, to a structure for connecting source driver
integrated circuits (ICs) and gate driver ICs to a liquid crystal panel and
connecting a driver circuit board to both the driver ICs to control their
timing. (Spec. 1.)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A liquid crystal display device comprising:

a liquid crystal panel;

a cover panel for covering substantially an entire rear surface of
the liquid crystal panel;

a backlight contained in the cover panel;

a film-like source bus board and a film-like gate bus board
which are placed on two adjacent sides of the cover panel;

source driver integrated circuits (hereafter referred to as "ICs")
mounted on the source bus board;

gate driver ICs mounted on the gate bus board;

a driver circuit board for controlling timing of the source driver
ICs and the gate driver ICs;

2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed Aug. 27, 2009; and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed March 11, 2009.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 22, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

3

a first flat flexible cable for connecting the driver circuit board
to the source bus board; and

a second flat flexible cable placed on the two adjacent sides of
the cover panel for connecting the source bus board to the gate bus
board.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda (US Patent No. 5,739,887 (Apr. 14, 1998)) and
Murayama (US Patent No. 6,160,605 (Dec. 12, 2000)).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda, Murayama, and Takahashi (US Patent No.
5,889,572 (Mar. 30, 1999)).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda, Murayama, and Miyazaki (US Patent No.
7,281,931 B2 (Oct. 16, 2007 (filed Jul. 23, 2004)).
4. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ueda, Murayama, and Adachi (US Patent No. 5,029,984
(Jul. 9, 1991)).

Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of representative claims 1 and 2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

4
ISSUES
1. Under § 103, did the Examiner err in combining Ueda and
Murayama?
2. Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Ueda and Murayama would have taught or suggested “a
film-like source bus board and a film-like gate bus board which are placed
on two adjacent sides of the cover panel” (emphasis added), as recited in
claim 1?
3. Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of references would have taught or suggested “wherein the
second flat flexible cable extends between and is connected to the source bus
board and the gate bus board, extending via a ridge line at a corner of the
liquid crystal panel formed where the two adjacent sides of the liquid crystal
panel intersect” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 2?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the analysis as follows.

ANALYSIS
Combinability
We first address the threshold issue as to whether the Examiner erred
in combining Ueda and Murayama. Appellant contends that, if Ueda were
modified to add flexible cables as taught by Murayama, the number of parts
would be increased, and thus Ueda’s invention would be rendered
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

5
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of reducing the number of parts.
(App. Br. 7.). We do not find this argument to be persuasive for the reasons
discussed infra.
After considering the evidence before us, it is our view that
Appellant’s argument does not take into account what the collective
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981):
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
Id. (citations omitted, emphasis added). This reasoning is applicable in the
present case.
It is our view that the Examiner cited Murayama to evidence that
flexible cables were well-known in the art at the time of the present
invention and not the bodily incorporation of Ueda and Murayama. (Ans.
4.) Therefore, we find Appellant’s arguments unavailing.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
combining Ueda and Murayama.
Claim 1
Appellant contends that the cited references do not teach or suggest
the source bus board and the gate bus board that are placed on two adjacent
sides of the cover panel, as claimed. Appellant contends that Ueda merely
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

6
discloses that the driver units are displaced on the same side of the substrate.
(App. Br. 5-6.)
The Examiner asserts that the claim language only requires that the
circuit boards are placed on two adjacent sides of the cover panel. (Ans. 7.)
In addition, the Examiner also asserts that Ueda discloses that the circuit
boards (103/104) are displaced on two adjacent sides, i.e., the right side and
bottom side, of a substrate. (Id.)
Regarding Appellant’s argument concerning the circuit boards being
placed on adjacent sides of the cover panel, we find that the differences
between the prior art and the presently claimed invention would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007).
This line of reasoning is applicable in the present case. The Examiner
has demonstrated through Ueda that it well known in the art at the time of
the present invention to place a source bus board and a gate bus board on
adjacent sides of an enclosure (Ueda, Fig. 1 (SHD & MCA
(casing/frame/mold)); col. 10, ll. 52-53, 60-62, 65-67). (Ans. 7.) Therefore,
we find that the differences between the prior art and Appellant’s invention
– placing the circuit boards on adjacent sides of a substrate in an enclosure
(casing), as opposed to adjacent sides of a cover – were well within the
realm of one skilled in the art at the time of the invention.
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

7
Appellant argues that the circuit boards 103/104 of Ueda are disposed
on the same side of the substrate, and urge that the phrase “adjacent sides”
should be interpreted as shown in Fig. 2 of Appellant’s Drawings. (Reply
Br. 2-3; App. Br. 4-5.) However, we will not read these limitations into the
claim language.3 We find that the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase
“adjacent sides” (right side and bottom) to be reasonable in light of the
Appellant’s disclosure.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1.
Claim 2
Appellant contends that each of the secondary references Takahashi,
Miyazaki, and Adachi do not teach or suggest a flat flexible cable as recited
in claim 2. (App. Br. 7-11.) Regarding Miyazaki, Appellant argues that the
electrical connectors are not flexible cables as claimed. (App. Br. 9.)
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
Miyazaki reference. (Ans. 5-6.) The Examiner found that Miyazaki
discloses the connector (50) arranged as claimed. (Id.) Although the
connector (50) of Miyazaki is not a flexible cable as claimed, we noted
above that the Examiner relied on Murayama as evidence that flexible cables
were well known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. (See Ans. 4;

3 "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations
contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment."
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004)
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

8
Murayama, col. 4, ll. 27-29; Fig. 2.) Thus, the combined teachings of Ueda,
Murayama and Miyazaki form a combination of known elements, which
render claim 2 obvious.
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida
v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). The operative question is
“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” (Id.)
This reasoning is applicable in the present case. It is our view that the
combination of Ueda, Murayama and Miyazaki teaches or suggests the
flexible cable as recited in claim 2. Appellant has not shown that the
improvements are anything more than a predictable use of known
components according to their established functions. Accordingly, we find
that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2, and we affirm the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Ueda, Murayama
and Miyazaki.
In view of our affirmance of claim 2 with respect to the combination
of Ueda, Murayama and Miyazaki (supra), we need not (and do not)
separately address the other obviousness rejections of claim 2 (with respect
to the Ueda, Murayama, and Takahashi, and Ueda, Murayama, and Adachi
combinations). “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the
grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the
examiner on that claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed.” 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a).
Appeal 2010-002224
Application 11/410,835

9

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

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

peb