Ex Parte Choi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

10253614 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SU-SEOK CHOI
____________________

Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 10-12, 15, 19-21 and 23-29. 1 Claims 1-9, 14,
18, 22 were canceled. Claims 13 and 16-17 were withdrawn in the Response
to the Election Requirement filed January 05, 2004. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 10 under appeal, with disputed
limitation emphasized, reads as follows:
10. A fabricating method of an array substrate for a reflective
liquid crystal display device, comprising:

forming a first organic layer on a substrate, the first
organic layer having a plurality of organic patterns of uneven
shape, the plurality of organic patterns having two heights and
two radii, a ratio of the height to the radius of each organic
pattern having a range of about 0.1 to about 0.2 to collimate to
the direction of the main viewing angle, and the plurality of
organic patterns spaced apart from each other to expose the
substrate; and

forming a reflective plate on the first organic layer, the
reflective plate having a high reflectance and a plurality of
protrusions, wherein each protrusion of the reflective plate
covers a single one of the plurality of organic patterns of the
first organic layer, wherein the plurality of protrusions in the
reflective plate have height to radius ratio ranges that are
substantially equal, and wherein at least two of the plurality of

1 Because pending claim 30 has not been rejected by the Examiner, nor
argued by the Appellant, we do not reach the merits or otherwise review this
claim in our decision.
Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614

3
protrusions in the reflective plate have different heights and
different radii.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 10-12, 15, 19-21 and 23-29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamanaka (US 6,452,653 B1).
Ans. 3-13.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends (Br. 10-11) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 10-12, 15, 19-21 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamanaka
for numerous reasons, including generally that the reference fails to teach or
suggest: (1) “a ratio of the height to the radius of each organic pattern having
a range of about 0.1 to about 0.2 to collimate to the direction of the main
viewing angle, and the plurality of organic patterns spaced apart from each
other to expose the substrate,” or (2) “the plurality of protrusions in the
reflective plate have height to radius ratio ranges that are substantially equal,
and wherein at least two of the plurality of protrusions in the reflective plate
have different heights and different radii,” as recited in exemplary claim 10,
and as similarly recited in independent claim 23 and each of the dependent
claims 11, 12, 15, 19-21, and 24-29.
Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614

4
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
14-27 of the Answer, including the citations to Yamanaka (see Ans. 16
(citing Yamanaka: Figs. 23A, 23B, 24A, 24B; col. 34, ll. 14-28; col. 33, l. 60
– col. 36, l. 23)) describing generally spaced apart organic patterns which
expose a substrate.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 10-11), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10-12, 15, 19-21, and 23-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamanaka because the reference fails to teach
or suggest: (1) “a ratio of the height to the radius of each organic pattern
having a range of about 0.1 to about 0.2 to collimate to the direction of the
main viewing angle, and the plurality of organic patterns spaced apart from
each other to expose the substrate,” or (2) “the plurality of protrusions in the
reflective plate have height to radius ratio ranges that are substantially equal,
and wherein at least two of the plurality of protrusions in the reflective plate
have different heights and different radii.” as recited in exemplary claim 10,
and as similarly recited in independent claim 23 and each of the dependent
claims 11, 12, 15, 19-21, and 24-29?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Brief. We disagree
Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614

5
with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Ans. 3-13), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 13-27) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or
obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA
1977). “[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products
of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden
of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing
that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of
the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255. See also Titanium Metals
Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(1) Appellant asserts that Yamanaka fails to teach or suggest “the
plurality of organic patterns spaced apart from each other to expose the
substrate.” Br. 10. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4 and 16) that at least
Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614

6
Figure 22 of Yamanaka shows the disputed limitation because residual film
13b can optionally be removed. Yamanaka, Fig. 22; col. 34, ll. 1-6.
Appellant further asserts that Yamanaka fails to teach or suggest “a
ratio of the height to the radius of each organic pattern having a range of
about 0.1 to about 0.2 . . .” Br. 10. “[W]here the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). We adopt as our own the Examiner’s position
(Ans. 9-10 and 19-20) that Yamanaka discloses the benefit of having a ratio
of the height to the radius of each organic pattern (Yamanaka, col. 4, l. 25 –
col. 5, l. 20) and that utilizing the claimed range would have been the
optimization of a results effective variable requiring only minimal
experimentation.
(2) Appellant asserts that Yamanaka fails to teach or suggest “the
plurality of protrusions in the reflective plate have height to radius ratio
ranges that are substantially equal, and wherein at least two of the plurality
of protrusions in the reflective plate have different heights and different
radii.” (Br. 11). We further adopt as our own the Examiner’s position (Ans.
10 and 23-26) that Yamanaka describes control of the height and radius as
results effective variables and that optimization would require only minimal
experimentation (Yamanaka, col. 4, l. 25 – col. 5, l. 20).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 23
as being obvious over Yamanaka. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 11, 12, 15, 19-21, and 24-29 for the reasons provided as to
claims 10 and 23 from which these claims respectively depend.

Appeal 2011-010469
Application 10/253,614

7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10-12, 15, 19-21 and 23-
29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamanaka.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-12, 15, 19-21 and 23-29 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj