Ex Parte Harada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2014

11821725 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/821,725 06/25/2007 Kenichi Harada F-9480 7465
28107 7590 07/10/2014
JORDAN AND HAMBURG LLP
122 EAST 42ND STREET
SUITE 4000
NEW YORK, NY 10168
EXAMINER
LEE, PAUL CHANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte KENICHI HARADA
____________
Appeal 2012-008470
Application 11/821,725
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 10 as unpatentable over Hiyama
et al. (US 7,006,173 B1, patented Feb. 28, 2006) in view of Shutou (US
2006/0210709 A1, published Sept. 21, 2006) and evidenced by Umeya (US
7,158,297 B2, patented Jan. 2, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.

We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-008470
Application 11/821,725

2
Appellant claims a rectangular liquid crystal display module
comprising a liquid crystal display element 41, a backlight 42, and an optical
unit 10 comprising a reflection polarizing plate 2, an optical sheet 3, and a
transparent media layer 11 interposed between the reflection polarizing plate
and optical sheet (claim 10, Fig. 6).

A copy of claim 10, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, appears below.
10. A rectangular liquid crystal display module comprising:
a liquid crystal display element in which a liquid crystal cell is
sandwiched between a pair of polarizing plates;
an optical unit overlaid on the back face side of the liquid crystal
display element; and
a surface illuminant backlight of immediate beneath type or opposed
edge light type overlaid on the back face side of the optical unit;
wherein the optical unit is a rectangular layered structural member,
comprising:
a reflection polarizing plate that splits reflected beams and
transmitted beams on the basis of polarization characteristics;
an optical sheet superposed on a back face side of the reflection
polarizing plate; and
a transparent media layer being interposed between the reflection
polarizing plate and the optical sheet, said transparent media layer being
comprised of a material having a volume which at least substantially fills a
space between said back face side of said reflection polarizing plate and a
confronting face of said optical sheet;
wherein the optical sheet includes a resin substrate film having an
optical anisotropy, the absolute value of the angle of the crystal orientation
of the substrate film with respect to the transmission axial orientation of the
reflection polarizing plate is π/8 or greater and 3π /8 or less, and the
retardation value of the substrate film is 70 nm or greater and 320 nm or
less; and
wherein the reflection polarizing plate of the optical unit is a back face
side-polarizing plate of the liquid crystal display element.
Appeal 2012-008470
Application 11/821,725

3
The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Hiyama discloses a rectangular
liquid crystal display module comprising, inter alia, a reflection polarizing
plate (30), an optical sheet (40, 60) and "a transparent media layer such as
the air being interposed between the reflection polarizing plate and the
optical sheet" (FOA 2, Ans. 6).

Appellant argues that the claimed "transparent media layer excludes
'air'" (App. Br. 9) in light of the Specification disclosure at page 5, first full
paragraph, "the transparent media layer ha[s] a refractive index greater than
that of the air" (Spec. 5:21-23) (App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 5).

In response, the Examiner states that Appellant's argument is "moot
since the claimed invention does not recite the features of the refractive
index of the transparent media layer being greater than that of the air" (Ans.
9).

"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).

This well established principle of law reveals that the issue before us
is— not whether claim 10 explicitly recites a refractive index greater than air
for the transparent media layer but— whether it is reasonable and consistent
Appeal 2012-008470
Application 11/821,725

4
with Appellant's Specification to interpret the claimed transparent media
layer as encompassing a layer of air.

Appellant is correct that the Specification discloses the transparent
media layer as "having a refractive index greater than that of the air" (Spec.
5:22-23). On the other hand, the Examiner does not identify any
Specification disclosure which teaches that the transparent media layer may
be a layer of air or may have the same refractive index as air. Under these
circumstances, the record of this appeal evinces that it would be
unreasonable and inconsistent with Appellant's Specification to interpret the
claimed transparent media layer as encompassing the layer of air shown in
Figure 1 of Hiyama.

For this reason, the Examiner erred in determining that Hiyama's
layer of air satisfies the transparent media layer limitation of claim 10. It
follows that we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc