Ex parte Gijrath

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 1999

08128622 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed September 28, 1993.1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________________
Ex parte JOHANNES H.N. GIJRATH
__________________
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,6221
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before BARRETT, LEE, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 13-24. Claims 1-12
have been canceled.
References relied on by the Examiner
Ragland, Jr. (Ragland) Patent 4,437,036 Mar. 13, 1984
Morrell Patent 4,146,816 Mar. 27, 1979
The Rejections on Appeal
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
2
Claims 14-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ragland.
Claims 14-17, 21, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragland.
Claims 18-20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ragland in view of Morrell.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a color display tube
including an electron gun, a display screen, a shadow mask
disposed between the display tube and the electron gun, and a
four-sided support frame which holds the shadow mask. As
disclosed in the specification, differences in thermal
expansion of the mask and the frame result in bending or
flexing of the frame without further deforming the shadow
mask. Upon movement of the sides of the frame, the mask moves
closer to or away from the screen.
Claim 13 reads as follows:
13. A color display tube comprising an electron gun for
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
3
generating electron beams, a display screen for receiving
said electron beams, a shadow mask disposed between said
electron gun and said display screen, and a four-sided
supporting frame for holding said shadow mask, the
improvement comprising means associated with said
supporting frame for preventing deformations of said
shadow mask during operation of the display tube.
Opinion
We reverse the rejection of claims 14-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. We reverse the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ragland. We
further reverse the rejection of claims 14-17, 21, 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragland and
claims 18-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ragland in view of Morrell.
The Indefiniteness Rejection
The examiner rejected claims 14-22 as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as the invention. The examiner states
that claim 14 is indefinite as “it is unclear as to how the
support frame for the shadow mask can function to prevent
inherent deformations of the shadow mask ... without deforming
the shadow mask.” (Answer, pg. 3).
We disagree with the examiner that the claims, when
properly interpreted, must prevent inherent deformations of
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
4
the shadow mask, such as the deformations caused by uneven
heating between the center and the sides of the shadow mask.
As disclosed in the specification, with reference to
embodiments shown in Fig. 5a and Fig. 6, the support frame
expands or contracts and bends. As a result, the frame shifts
the shadow mask relative to the display screen. The frame
makes these adjustments without further deforming the shadow
mask. (Spec., pg. 7, lines 1-7, and pg. 9, lines 2-21).
We do not interpret the language “for preventing
deformations” to mean preventing even the inherent
deformations caused by uneven heating of the shadow mask. As
is discussed in further detail below, we interpret the
language “for preventing deformations” to mean preventing
those deformations caused by interaction with the support
frame.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 14-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite is
reversed.
The Rejections over Prior Art
The examiner finally rejected claim 13 as being
anticipated by Ragland. Claim 13 includes a means-plus-
function clause. In In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1195, 1189,
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
5
29 USPQ2d 1850, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc), the court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that:
Per our holding, the “broadest reasonable interpretation”
that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is
that statutorily mandated in paragraph six. Accordingly,
the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the
specification corresponding to such language when
rendering a patentability determination.
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
6
Prior to identifying structures, materials, and acts
described in the specification, which correspond to a
particular means, however, the examiner should first determine
if the recited function is even performed in the prior art
reference. Here, the issue is whether the prior art discloses
“preventing deformations of said shadow mask” as is recited in
claim 13.
Although extraneous limitations should not be read into
the claims from the specification, E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d
1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1988), claim limitations are always
properly interpreted in light of the specification and
prosecution history. See, e.g., Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal
Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Here, we look to the specification to interpret the functional
recitation of “preventing deformations of said shadow mask
during operation of the display tube.” The specification
describes preventing deformations of the shadow mask with
respect to two separate embodiments.
The first embodiment in the specification that describes
preventing deformations of the shadow mask is found on pages 6
and 7, with reference to Fig. 5a. Here, the frame 20 is shown
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
7
in Fig. 5a with a slit 41 located in at least one side of the
frame to which the mask is attached at points 42. (Spec., pg.
6, lines 26-29). The differences in thermal expansion between
the mask and the frame result in the slit 41 becoming narrower
or wider. (Spec., pg. 7, lines 1-5). The narrowing or
widening of the slit 41 results in bending of the frame.
(Spec., pg. 7, lines 5-6). The expanding or contracting and
hence bending of the frame is said to be accomplished without
deforming the shadow mask. (Spec., pg. 7, lines 5-7).
The second embodiment in the specification that describes
preventing deformations of the shadow mask is found on pages 8
and 9, with reference to Fig. 6. In this embodiment, in
addition to the slit located in at least one side of the
frame, a flexible connection 51 is located at the ends of the
side of the frame and connected to both the mask and the
frame. (Spec., pg. 9, lines 1-2). As in the other
embodiment, contracting, expanding, and bending of the frame
is said to be accomplished without deforming the shadow mask.
(Spec., pg. 9, lines 2-6).
In both embodiments, when the frame contracts, expands or
bends, the shadow mask is not further deformed. Nothing
disclosed in the specification purports to keep the shadow
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
8
mask from deforming as a result of uneven heating of the
shadow mask itself. We interpret the functional language of
preventing deformations of the shadow mask to mean those
deformations caused by interaction with the support frame, not
including the inherent deformations of the shadow mask due to
uneven heating. The latter is described, on page 1 of the
specification. Temperature increases at the edge of the
shadow mask are smaller than at the center of the mask, which
results in bulging of the mask. (Spec., pg. 1, lines 17-19).
The examiner rejected claim 13 as being anticipated by
Ragland. The examiner suggests that the term “preventing” may
be broadly interpreted to mean “impeding” or “reducing” and
therefore concludes that Ragland’s frame functions to “impede”
or “reduce” deformations of the shadow mask. (Answer, pgs.
10-12). The examiner further reasons that the functional
limitation of preventing deformations of the shadow mask may
be broadly interpreted to mean that any corrective distortion
of the shadow mask would meet the means for preventing
deformations of the shadow mask. (Answer, pg. 12). We
disagree with the examiner.
Ragland discloses embodiments for correcting doming
problems which result from uneven thermal heating of a shadow
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
9
mask. In one embodiment, the shadow mask includes a skirt
which has associated with it a different coefficient of
thermal expansion than the main portions of the mask.
Considering the skirt as the equivalent to a support frame, it
is clear that expansion or contraction of the skirt upon
heating causes deformation of the overall mask. (Ragland,
column 3, lines 12-17, and lines 29-37). In another
embodiment, the frame attached to the shadow mask has
associated with it a different coefficient of thermal
expansion than the mask. Upon heating, the frame’s movements
result in deformation of the mask. (Ragland, column 4, lines
45-57).
Specifically in both embodiments, the shadow mask deforms
or distorts as a result of interaction with the skirt or
frame. Ragland states in column 3, lines 29-37, that when the
mask heats up, the corners of the mask rise in the +Z
direction, as the rest of the mask goes down in the -Z
direction.
In the claimed invention, upon heating, the difference in
thermal expansion between the frame and the mask cause the
frame to bend, however, the bending of the frame does not
cause further deformation of the mask. (Spec., pg. 7, lines
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
10
6-7 and pg. 9, lines 5-6). Clearly, Ragland’s shadow mask is
deformed when the frame or skirt expand, bend, or otherwise
react to thermal increases. Accordingly, in Ragland, the
function of preventing deformations of the shadow mask is not
performed.
The examiner would further urge us to read “preventing
deformations” as any corrective action which results in the
overall reduction of deformations. (Answer, pg. 12). The
examiner has interpreted the claim to mean, that inherent
deformations of the mask corrected by further deforming the
mask results in overall prevention of deformation. However,
the specification regarding the two embodiments which describe
preventing deformations of a shadow mask does not suggest
deforming the mask to correct inherent deformations. In light
of the specification, we do not regard the examiner’s view as
a reasonable interpretation of the appellants’ claim.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ragland.
The remaining claims were rejected based on obviousness
under the assumption by the examiner that Ragland discloses an
apparatus which prevents deformations of a shadow mask. As
stated above, we disagree with the examiner that Ragland
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
11
teaches this function. Therefore, the rejection of the
remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
12
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph is reversed.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ragland is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14-17, 21, 23 and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragland is reversed.
The rejection of claims 18-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Ragland in view of Morrell is
reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
13
Corporate Patent Counsel
U.S. Philips Corporation
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591