Ex Parte BANG

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 2003

09109884 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YOUNG UN BANG
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
____________
ON BRIEF
____________

Before OWENS, LIEBERMAN, and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner
refusing to allow claims 1, 3, 5, 7 through 17, 19 through 24 and 26 through 37 which
are all the claims pending in this application.
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a liquid crystal display (LCD)apparatus wherein the
front surface of the LCD module is covered with a metal frame. The LCD module has an
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
2
enclosure surrounding a side and rear surface. A case prepared from aluminum or an alloy
thereof is secured to the enclosure and electrically coupled to the LCD display module via
the metal frame. Additional limitations are described in the following illustrative claim.
THE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative of appellant’s invention and is reproduced below:
1. A liquid crystal display apparatus, comprising:
a liquid crystal display module for displaying data a periphery of the
front surface of the liquid crystal display module being covered with a metal
frame;
an enclosure loaded with the liquid crystal display module and
substantially surrounding a side surface and a rear surface of the liquid crystal
display module; and
a case secured to the enclosure and the liquid crystal display module,
said case being made from aluminum or aluminum alloy to protect the
circumference of a display area in the liquid crystal display module and
electrically coupled to said liquid crystal display module via the metal frame.
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references:
Plesinger 5,146,354 Sep. 8, 1992
Kim 5,872,606 Feb. 16, 1999
Yeager et al. (Yeager) 6,002,582 Dec. 14, 1999
THE REJECTIONS

Claims 1, 3, 17, 19, 23, 26, 30 through 32 and 34 through 37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger.
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
3
Claims 5, 7, 24 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger and further in view of Kim.
Claims 8 through 16, 20 through 22 and 27 through 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger and further in
view of Kim.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejections of the claims under Section
103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of the rejections
The Rejection under Section 103(a)
It is the examiner’s position that, “[i]t would have been obvious to [sic, the person]
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display
apparatus of Yeager with the metal case (or bezel) taught by Plesinger for the purpose of
having better EMI shielding and heat dissipation.” See Answer, page 4. We disagree.
The conclusion of the examiner is based upon numerous findings of fact which form
the basis for the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness supra. We find however, that many
of the findings are in themselves either erroneous or misidentify the elements found in the
references. Thus, 28 is found to be a display apparatus in the Answer. See Answer, page
3. Yeager, however, identifies 28 as “a hinged top or cover.” See column 2, lines 37-
38, 44 and 50. The Answer identifies 64 as constituting a metal frame. See Answer,
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
4
page 3. Yeager however, identifies 64 as a metal band. See column 2, line 64. Most
significantly, the Answer identifies 48 as constituting a case or bezel. See Answer, page 3.
Yeager however, not only identifies 48 as an “adapter,” column 3, lines 1 and 6, but uses
the term, ”bezel” for 50. See column 3, lines 36, 42 and 63. Accordingly, the
discussion of the Yeager reference in the Answer is confusing and in conflict with the
specific teachings of Yeager.
Furthermore, the characterization of Plesinger is likewise without merit. The
Answer identifies 122, Fig. 4 as a case or bezel. Plesinger, however, identifies 122 as a
front frame member. Moreover, Plesinger explicitly teaches that, “the entire assembly
described above is enclosed in a separate plastic enclosure 126. The plastic enclosure 126
preferably comprises a front panel 128 having plastic tabs 130 (FIG. 4) and a pan-shaped
back member 132 having lip members 134 (FIG. 4).” See column 4, lines 32-36. See
also column 5, lines 56-62. Accordingly, we conclude that Plesinger fails to teach a
display apparatus having a metal bezel or case, let alone one from aluminum.
Based upon the above analysis, we have determined that the examiner’s legal
conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the facts. "Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by [the] facts[,] it cannot stand." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154
USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied,
390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
5
In view of the fact that the examiner did not rely upon Kim to remedy the
limitations of claim 5 that appear in claim 1, we need not consider the Kim reference.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 17, 19, 23, 26, 30 through 32 and 34 through
37 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 5, 7, 24 and under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger and further in view of Kim is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
6
The rejection of claims 8 through 16, 20 through 22 and 27 through under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger and further in
view of Kim is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.

REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PAUL LIEBERMAN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
LINDA R. POTEATE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PL/hh
Appeal No. 2003-1519
Application No. 09/109,884
7
MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE, L.L.P.
1900 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20006