Ex parte Cobb et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 1999

08024610 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 1, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SANFORD COBB, JR. and JOHN F. DREYER
____________
Appeal No. 96-1839
Application No. 08/024,6101
____________
HEARD: September 13, 1999
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, LALL, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-
11, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 96-1839
Application No. 08/024,610
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an electroluminescent display with brightness
enhancement. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A backlit display comprising:
a case having an optical window and an axis;
an electroluminescent panel in said case;
a structured surface material between said electrolumin-
escent panel and said optical window, said structured surface
material having the property that light entering it while making
an angle in a first predetermined group of angles with said
axis will be reflected and light entering it while making an angle
in a second predetermined group of angles with said axis will
be refracted such that the majority of the light in said second
group of angles will form an output wedge that is narrow[er]
than said output wedge's associated input wedge, said angles
in said second group of angles being greater than said angles
in said first group of angles; and
a light gating means between said structured surface material
and said optical window.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Ukrainsky 4,748,546 May 31, 1988
Abileah 5,262,880 Nov. 16, 1993
(Filed Aug. 06, 1992)
McCartney, Jr. et al (McCartney) 5,280,371 Jan. 18, 1994
(Filed Jul. 09, 1992)
Appeal No. 96-1839
Application No. 08/024,610
Page 3
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Abileah in view of Ukrainsky. Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abileah in view of Ukrainsky and McCartney.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Jan. 24, 1996) for the Examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 20, mailed Dec. 13, 1995)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the claim limitation of the electroluminescent panel (as a back
light) is not met by the fluorescent lights taught in the prior art references applied against
the claims. (See brief at page 10.) We agree with appellants. The Examiner relies upon
the argument that the fluorescent light is an electroluminescent light source. We disagree
with the Examiner. After a review of the specification, the declaration by
Appeal No. 96-1839
Application No. 08/024,610
Page 4
With respect to McCartney, the patent is silent to the light source, but the McCartney article filed2
on Mar. 7, 1994 by appellants discusses fluorescent lamps as conventional for backlighting.
Mr. Kalweit and numerous definitions presented by the Examiner and appellants, it is clear
that the term “electroluminescent” has a different definition than “fluorescent.” The
specification discusses an electroluminescent display and electroluminescent light source
(Background of the Invention at page 1.) From the discussion in the specification, it would
be unreasonable to interpret electroluminescent to be the same as fluorescent or vice
versa. It is clear that the claim sets forth a limitation regarding the electroluminescent
panel which is not taught by the prior art applied against the claims.
Appellants further argue that it would not have been obvious to make a backlit
display using an electroluminescent panel in light of the teachings of the use of fluorescent
light in the prior art. (See brief at pages 10-11.) We make no finding regarding whether it
would have been obvious to substitute an electroluminescent panel as back light in a
display device for the fluorescent light taught by the three prior art references since the2
Examiner has not presented an argument thereto in the Examiner’s answer.
Since we find that the fluorescent light as taught in the prior art references is not an
electroluminescent light source, then the “fluorescent” tube light and potting material
cannot meet the limitation of the “electroluminescent” panel as set forth in claim l.
Appeal No. 96-1839
Application No. 08/024,610
Page 5
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 1 and 3-11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 96-1839
Application No. 08/024,610
Page 6
STEPHEN W. BUCKINGHAM
3M OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL
P.O. BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427