Ex Parte Huber

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2007

10212240 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RICHARD E. HUBER
__________

Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240
__________

HEARD: December 12, 2006
__________

Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-24, which are all of the claims
pending in this application. The Examiner indicates claims 7-10 and 18-20
as allowable (Answer 2), which leaves only the rejection of claims 1-6, 11-
17 and 21-24 to be considered by this panel.
We affirm.

Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

I. BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to projection televisions having a flat front
panel that eliminates the need for a bezel frame and reduces assembly complexities
and the number of parts required for the assembly. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary independent claim 1, which
is reproduced as follows:
1. In a projection television assembly comprising a cabinet structure,
a screen assembly including:

a front screen panel having a front face and a rear face, said screen
panel being generally fair with said front face substantially coextensive to
and parallel to said rear face;

a lenticular screen having a front face and a rear face, said front face
being disposed in generally parallel facing relation to said near face of said
screen panel;

a Fresnel screen having a front face disposed in opposed facing
relation to said rear face of said lenticular screen;

a plurality of fasteners projecting rearwardly, directly from said screen
panel, and secured directly to said cabinet structure, thereby to dispose said
lenticular lens and said Fresnel lens between said screen panel and said
cabinet.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:

Scheve US 4,715,137 Dec. 29, 1987
Yamada US 5,580,145 Dec. 3, 1996
Takiguchi US 5,818,545 Oct. 6, 1998
Mitani US 5,914,809 Jun. 22, 1999
2
Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

3
Schrock US 5,923,908 Jul. 13, 1999
Whitelaw US 6,157,416 Dec. 5, 2000

Appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA), Figure 1, pages 1-2 of the Specification.
Claims 1, 11, 14 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mitani.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mitani in combination with AAPA.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitani in combination with Scheve.
Claims 5, 16, 17, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitani in combination with Whitelaw.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitani in combination with Yamada.
Claims 12 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitani in combination with Schrock.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Mitani and Schrock in combination with Takiguchi.

Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

4
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Brief and the
Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief
have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, Appellant’s position is that
the screen panel shown in Figure 7b of Mitani is not generally flat as claimed and
does not comprise a plurality of fasteners projecting rearwardly from a flat screen
(Br. 10). Appellant points out that the edge walls of the front screen in Mitani
cannot be ignored as they truncate the rear surface and prevent it from being
coextensive with the front face of the screen panel (Br. 11). In response, the
Examiner argues that the claims do not preclude the fasteners being integrally
formed with the front wall of the screen (Answer 15) while the terms “generally
flat” and “substantially coextensive” merely require less than 100 percent flat and
coextensive (Answer 16). The Examiner concludes that even with the edge walls,
the remaining part of the screen panel in Mitani is generally flat with its front face
Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

5
substantially coextensive to its rear face where the fasteners project rearwardly
(id.).
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single prior art
document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry as
to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.
As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read
on’ something disclosed in the prior art reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim
are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” See also Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)).
Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

6
In determining the subject matter encompassed by claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that the claim merely requires the screen panel be generally flat with the
front face substantially coextensive to its rear face. However, Mitani does show
panel 2 which, although is shaped as a box by short sidewalls (Mitani, Figures 7b
and 8b; col. 7, ll. 4-7), is generally flat and has substantially coextensive front and
rear faces. Mitani also shows a plurality of fasteners 13 and 27 for mounting the
two lenses between the front panel and the cabinet main body, which are provided
at the edge of the front panel and project rearwardly from the screen panel (Mitani,
col. 7, ll. 8-10).
We also remain unconvinced by Appellant’s argument that because the edge
walls truncate the rear face, it cannot be coextensive with the front face (Br. 11).
As pointed out by the Examiner, the presence of the edge walls does not preclude
the front face being substantially coextensive to the rear face or the fasteners
projecting rearwardly from panel 2 of Mitani (Answer 16). Accordingly, the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 11, 14 and 21 over Mitani is sustained.

35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims
Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

7
With respect to claim 2, Appellant argues (Br. 12) that the AAPA refers only
to clear or slightly tinted acrylic. Appellant further points out that the Examiner
has not shown any suggestion for using glass in Mitani (id.). The Examiner relies
on pages 1-2 of Appellant’s Specification and asserts that the advantages of using a
glass protective screen would have made the modification obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art (Answer 18).
A review of Mitani also reveals that a glass or plastic panel, disposed in
front of the lens layers, lowers the light permeably on the front surface and protects
the sensitive lens layers (Mitani, col. 1, ll. 5-13). Although Mitani already
describes using glass panel 69 (Figure 11), its combination with AAPA is proper as
they both describe the benefits of using a glass front panel. Obviousness from
[prior art reference] would follow, ipso facto, if [prior art reference] anticipates.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1446, 221
USPQ 385, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962, 154 USPQ
10, 12 (CCPA 1967), (anticipation stated as being the "epitome of obviousness").
Accordingly, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2.
Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

8
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4, Appellant merely
relies on the same arguments presented for base claim 1 (Br. 13). For the same
reasons stated above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4
over Mitani and Scheve.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5, 16, 17, 23, and 24,
we note that Appellant’s arguments focus on what the claimed front screen cannot
include, such as integral tabs or fasteners (oral hearing; Br. 14). The Examiner
apparently takes tabs 30 of Whitelaw as parts of viewing screen 12 (Answer 19)
wherein screw-like fasteners connect the front screen to the frame (Whitelaw, Fig.
5A, col. 5, ll. 7-12). Based on the breadth of the claimed subject matter we
discussed above, we find that tabs 30 or similar extensions are integral parts of the
front screen in Whitelaw. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fasteners inserted in
the apertures in front screen tabs of Whitelaw for connecting the front screen to the
cabinet. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5, 16, 17, 23 and 24
over Mitani and Whitelaw is sustained.
Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

9
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 22 over Mitani and
Schrock, Appellant asserts that the touch controls disclosed by Schrock are in an
entirely different assembly and cannot be combined with Mitani (Br. 16). We
agree with the Examiner (Answer 20-21) that the principles of operation of touch
sensitive controls in a camera, as disclosed by Schrock, are applicable to other
devices such as a television since similar functions are intended. Therefore, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 22 over Mitani and Schrock.
Lastly, turning to the rejection of the remaining claims over various
combinations of Mitani with Yamada, Schrock and Takiguchi, we note that
Appellant relies on similar arguments presented above with respect to claim 1. We
sustain these rejections as well. Since we agree with the Examiner, as previously
discussed, that Mitani can be reasonably interpreted as providing the claimed front
screen, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding of obviousness as taught by the
combination of Mitani with Yamada, Schrock or Takiguchi. Accordingly, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 15 over Mitani and Yamada,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 13 over Mitani, Schrock and
Takiguchi.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
CONCLUSION
In view of the forgoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1, 11, 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting claims 2-6, 12, 13, 15-17
and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

MDS/gw

Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240

NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203