Ex Parte Hwang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201412033906 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEONG-MO HWANG, JEE-HONG MIN, MOON-GYU LEE, and KYU-MIN CHOE __________ Appeal 2012-005592 Application 12/033,906 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 5-7, 11, and 13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a collimating light guide plate and a diffusing unit, and a display apparatus employing the collimating Appeal 2012-005592 Application 12/033,906 2 light guide plate and the diffusing unit (Spec. para. [0002]). The display apparatus employing the collimating light guide plate and the diffusing unit is said to show improved optical performance such as light transmittance, viewing angle, and resolution. Id. Claims 5 and 7 are illustrative: 5. A diffusing unit for a display apparatus which comprises a plurality of pixels, each pixel comprising sub-pixels, the diffusing unit comprising: a first tri-acetyl-cellulose (TAC) layer; a second TAC layer disposed over the first TAC layer; a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) layer disposed between the first and second TAC layers; and beads mixed in the second TAC layer such that the beads are dispersed within the second TAC layer, wherein the first TAC layer, the second TAC layer, and the PVA layer together operate as a polarizing plate. 7. A display apparatus which comprises a plurality of pixels, each pixel comprising sub-pixels, the display apparatus comprising: a backlight unit; a first polarizing plate which transmits light having a predetermined polarization among light emitted by the backlight unit; a liquid crystal layer forming an image using light transmitted through the first polarizing plate; a color filter which transmits light having a predetermined wavelength among light transmitted through the liquid crystal layer; and a diffusing unit disposed on the color filter, wherein the diffusing unit comprises a first tri-acetyl-cellulose (TAC) layer; a second TAC layer disposed over the first TAC layer; a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) layer disposed between the first and second TAC layers; and Appeal 2012-005592 Application 12/033,906 3 beads mixed in the second TAC layer such that the beads are dispersed within the second TAC layer, and wherein the first TAC layer, the second TAC layer, and the PVA layer together operate as a second polarizing plate. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haas (US 5,990,993, patented Nov. 23, 1999) in view of Nishida (JP 2000-258612 A, published Sept. 2000) and Kouya (US 6,552,763 B1, patented Apr. 22, 2003). 2. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haas in view of Nishida, Kouya, and Yamashita et al. (US 2002/0114149 A1, patented Aug. 22, 2002). Appellants’ arguments focus on claims 5 and 7 only (App. Br. 10-12). Claims 6, 11, and 13 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claims 5 and 7. ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the combined teachings of Haas, Nishida, and Kouya would have suggested a diffusing unit for a display apparatus having the structure recited in claim 5 and a display apparatus including the diffusing unit structure recited in claim 7? We decide this issue in the negative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Haas, Nishida, and Kouya are located on pages 4-8, and 7-9 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Haas teaches the subject matter of claim 7 except for the Appeal 2012-005592 Application 12/033,906 4 particularly claimed diffusing unit structure (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds that Nishida teaches a polarizing plate structure including a polarizing layer 2c sandwiched between two tri-acetyl-cellulose (TAC) layers with one of the TAC layers having beads mixed with the TAC material (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Nishida does not teach that polarizer layer 2c is made of polyvinylalcohol (PVA) as required by the claims. The Examiner finds that Kouya teaches a polarizer film made by sandwiching a PVA polarizer layer between two protective layers of TAC (Ans. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Nishida’s diffusing unit 2 for Haas’ diffusing unit in order to avoid image blurring (Ans. 6). The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Kouya’s PVA polarizer layer for the polarizer layer in Nishida as functional equivalents suitable for the same purpose (Ans. 6). Appellants do not contest the combination of Haas and Nishida. Rather, Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to replace the polarizing layer 2c of Nishida with the PVA layer of Kouya because Kouya discloses that the polarizing layer includes all of the TAC layer 6b, the PVA layer 7, and the TAC layer 6a (App. Br. 11). According to Appellants one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Kouya’s entire polarizing film including the TAC layers for Nishida’s polarizing layer 2c. Id. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Kouya discloses PVA layer 7 functions at the polarizing layer and the TAC layers function as protective layers for the PVA polarizing layer (col. 8, ll. 17-21). Nishida discloses that the layer 2c is the polarizing layer (Nishida translation para. [0044]). Accordingly, the teachings of the references support the Examiner’s finding Appeal 2012-005592 Application 12/033,906 5 that one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Kouya’s PVA polarizing layer for Nishida’s polarizing layer as functional equivalents. Notably, Appellants have not specifically challenged the Examiner’s finding that Nishida’s polarizing layer 2c and Kouya’s PVA polarizing layer 7 are functionally equivalent (Ans. 6). Regarding claims 5 and 7, Appellants further argue that Nishida’s scattering stratum 2a is not part of the polarizing plate because the polarizing layer 2c is separate from the scattering stratum 2a (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend that the combination of references fails to teach the claim limitation that first TAC layer, second TAC layer and the PVA layer together operate as a polarizing plate. Id. The Examiner correctly responds that scattering stratum 2a is part of the same light scattering sheet as polarizing layers 2c and 2d (Ans. 8-9). We agree. Appellants seem to be arguing that the protective layer 2b between layer 2a and 2c somehow renders the scattering stratum 2a not part of the light scattering sheet 2. However, this argument is contradicted by the teachings of Nishida where the scattering stratum 2a is either formed directly on the transparent substrate or formed separately and laminated on the transparent substrate (Nishida para. [0034]). Either way, the scattering stratum is attached and part of the light scattering sheet 2 as found by the Examiner. Moreover, each of claims 5 and 7 use the open-ended transitional claim language “comprising” when reciting the features of the diffusing unit. Accordingly, the claims do not exclude additional layers between the TAC layers and the PVA layer. Claims 5 and 7 merely require that the PVA layer is “disposed between the first and second TAC layers.” As such, Nishida’s Appeal 2012-005592 Application 12/033,906 6 protective layer 2b does not change that fact that the polarizing layer 2c modified to include PVA is disposed between TAC layer 2a that contains beads and TAC layer 2d as found by the Examiner (Ans. 5). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. 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)(1). ORDER AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation