Ex Parte Baek

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2006

10407247 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte HEUM-II BAEK
__________

Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 26 through 36.
The disclosed invention relates to the structure of a reflective LCD device.
Claim 26 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as follows:
26. The reflective LCD device, comprising:

first and second substrates facing and spaced apart from each other;

a half wave plate and a polarizer that are formed in series on the second substrate;

a liquid crystal layer interposed between the first and second substrates;

a common electrode on a surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate, the
common electrode is formed of a transparent conductive material;

Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247

2
a pixel electrode formed on the first substrate and corresponding to each pixel, the pixel
electrode is formed of a reflective conductive material; and

wherein a slow axis of the half wave plate is disposed at an angle “θ” from a transmissive
axis of the polarizer.

The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Okamoto et al. (Okamoto) 6,281,952 Aug. 28, 2001
(filed Dec. 22, 1998)

Claims 26 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Okamoto.
Reference is made to an amendment filed March 2, 2004, the briefs and the answer for
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 26 through 36.
In the March 2, 2004 amendment, the appellant changed the claim 26 limitation “a
retardation film and a second polarizer that are formed in series on the second substrate” to “ a
half wave plate and a second polarizer that are formed in series on the second substrate.” In the
remarks section of the amendment, appellant stated that the amendment was made “to correct a
minor informality,” and that the amendment is “unrelated to patentability” (page 7).
In the statement of the rejection, the examiner has made findings (answer, pages 3
through 5) that Okamoto describes all of the LCD device structure set forth in claim 1 with the

Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247

3
exception of the half wave plate and the slow axis thereof. With respect to the half wave plate,
the examiner made the following additional findings (answer, page 5):
Since Applicant admits the amendment to claim 26 is unrelated to
patentability Okamoto is evidence that ordinary workers in the art of liquid
crystals would find the reason, suggestion, or motivation to add a phase plate or
half wave plate to provide satisfactory phase plate performance for improved
display performance.

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art of liquid crystals at the time the invention was made to modify the LCD of
Okamoto with the half wave plate of Okamoto to provide satisfactory phase plate
performance for improved display performance.

In response, appellant argues (reply brief, pages 2 and 3):

Appellant is mystified at how the Examiner can read so much into
Appellant’s statements made in the Response filed on March 2, 2004.
Furthermore, Appellant respectfully asserts that the Examiner’s interpretations of
Appellant’s statements and allegations are clearly a distortion of the record. For
example, at no time has Appellant ever made any admissions with regard to the
equivalency of a half wave plate to a retardation film, or that a half wave plate
somehow anticipates a retardation film. Therefore, the Examiner’s allegations
that Appellant has made “admissions” and that these alleged “admissions” are
somehow motivation with which to modify Okamoto et al. are simply untrue and
not supported by the record.

With regard to Okamoto et al., Appellant respectfully asserts that the
Examiner has yet to provide any proper motivation with which to modify
Okamoto et al. Specifically, Appellant respectfully asserts that neither
Appellant’s statements made in the Response filed on March 2, 2004, nor the
reasoning provided by the Examiner, both in the Office Actions and Examiner’s
Answer, provide proper motivation with which to modify Okamoto et al. to arrive
at Appellant’s claimed invention. Although the Examiner continues to rely upon
Appellant’s statements made in the Response filed on March 2, 2004 for allegedly
providing motivation for modifying Okamoto et al., the simple irrefutable fact
remains that Okamoto et al. is completely silent with regard to adding a half wave
plate to provide “satisfactory phase plate performance for improved display
performance,” as alleged by the Examiner.
Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247

4
We agree with the appellant’s arguments. The record before us simply does not support
any of the examiner’s conclusions concerning the amendment dated March 2, 2004. The so-
called admission by the appellant is nothing more than a statement by the appellant that the
amendment to claim 26 should not be treated as being related to patentability of the claim. In
any event, nothing in the brief statement made by the appellant in the amendment supports the
examiner’s proposed wholesale modification of Okamoto “to add a phase plate or half wave
plate to provide satisfactory phase plate performance for improved display performance.” Since
Okamoto neither teaches nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan the addition of a half
wave plate with the specifically claimed slow axis to a LCD, the obviousness rejection of claims
26 through 36 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 26 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247

5
REVERSED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH/kis

Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247

6
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P.
1111 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20004