Ex Parte HondaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201713264697 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation