Ex Parte Honda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13264697 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

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.
13/264,697 11/29/2011 Makoto Honda 20162.0144USWO 2163
52835 7590 05/22/2017
HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, NANCY ROSENBERG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMail @hsml. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAKOTO HONDA
Appeal 2016-007027
Application 13/264,697
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007027
Application 13/264,697
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1—5 and 7—21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a layer having fine particles used
for an optical element to be used in various display devices (Spec. 11). The
layer including the fine particles provides high anti-glare property, high
diffusibility, and high black color reproducibility (Spec. 17).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A layer comprising a transparent base and fine
particles for an optical function layer, and added to the
transparent base used in formation of the optical function layer,
the fine particles each comprising
a core, and
a shell covering the core,
wherein the fine particles have a mean particle size R that
is larger than a wavelength of light entering the optical function
layer,
a ratio (r/R) of a mean core sizer to the mean particle size
R is 0.50 or higher, and
the shell has a refractive index different from the
transparent base to which the fine particles are added and has
light-absorbing property, and
wherein in the case that a luminance of direct
transmission in diffused luminance distribution is represented
by p, and a luminance of direct transmission in diffused
luminance distribution at a maximum absorption wavelength of
the additive in particles each containing no additive with the
light-absorbing property in the shell thereof is represented by P,
then (p/P) is 0.6 or higher.
2
Appeal 2016-007027
Application 13/264,697
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1—5 and 7—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Honda (US 2004/0263965 Al, pub. Dec. 30, 2004) in
view of Etori (WO 2008/018339 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2008).
Appellant argues independent claim 1 only (App. Br. 5—11).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANAFYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Honda and Etori
are located on pages 3—7 of the Final Action.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding that Honda’s material is
inherently light absorbing is contrary to the claim that requires the p/P ratio
that is a measure of the effect of the light absorbing additive in the shell on
luminance (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that there is no reason why
Honda’s particle would contain only a light absorbing property in the skin
layer and not the core layer also (App. Br. 7). Appellant argues that Honda’s
invention works by having the light reflected off the skin layer (S2) and the
light reflected off the core layer (S3) have the same wavelength and
destructively interfere with one another (App. Br. 8). Appellant contends
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have placed a pigment in
Honda’s skin layer because doing so would have made the wavelengths of
light reflected at S2 and S3 different, which would not have permitted the
destructive interference sought by Honda (App. Br. 8). Appellant argues
that adding Etori’s carbon black to the microparticles would make the entire
particle (core and skin) black thereby preventing light transmission. Id.
Appellant argues that combining Etori’s light absorber with Honda’s
3
Appeal 2016-007027
Application 13/264,697
microparticles would have resulted in frustrating Honda’s purpose of
reducing reflected light by allowing destructive interference of the reflected
light (App. Br. 8—9).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they fail to show
reversible error with the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner’s rejection is
based upon the claim interpretation that the microparticle in the claim does
not exclude having light absorbing material in the microparticle core (Ans.
5). The Examiner further finds that unless the amount of light absorber
added to the particle is of such a level as to make the microparticle opaque
and block all light, a particle having a shell and core with different refractive
indices (i.e., Honda) will reflect and refract light whether the particle has a
light absorbing property or not (Ans. 5—6). The Examiner finds that Etori
teaches in paragraphs 24 and 33 adjusting the amount of light absorbing
material to control the amount of light absorption relative to the amount of
light scattering (Final Act. 5, Ans. 6). In other words, the Examiner finds
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined the desired
amount of light absorbing material to add to the microparticles (i.e., the shell
and/or core) in order to achieve the desired amount of light scattering to light
absorption so as to satisfy the p/P ratio (Final Act. 5). Appellant does not
dispute or show reversible error with these findings of the Examiner (Reply
Br. 1-3).
Although Appellant argues that the p/P ratio recited in claim 1 means
that the shell has a higher light absorbing capacity relative to the core, we
note that the claimed ratio is not limited to having the light absorbing
additive only in the shell. Claim 1 only recites that P is a measure of the
“luminance of direct transmission in diffused luminance distribution at a
4
Appeal 2016-007027
Application 13/264,697
maximum absorption wavelength of the additive in the particles each
containing no additive with the light-absorbing property in the shell thereof.”
So, the P value only requires no additive in the shell as part of its
measurement, but does not exclude having additive in the core. In other
words, the Examiner reasonably finds that Etori teaches adjusting the
amounts of carbon black light absorber in the microparticles (e.g., core
and/or shell) to achieve the desired amount of light scattering (reflection and
refraction) and light absorption (Final Act. 5). Therefore, it would have
been within the skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan to determine the suitable
amount of carbon black to add to the shell and/or core to achieve the desired
p/P ratio as found by the Examiner (Final Act. 5). Appellant does not
dispute that the prior art would have suggested optimizing to arrive at the
claimed p/P ratio (Reply Br. generally).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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)(l)(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5