Ex Parte Jeong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12314640 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/314,640 12/15/2008
9629 7590 08/25/2016
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cheong Hwa Jeong
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
104429-5029 5759
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THANH NHAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
patents@morganlewis.com
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHEONG HWA JEONG 1
Appeal2015-000737
Application 12/314,640
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 6-11, rejecting claims 6-8 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102 (b) as
1 Appellant identified the real party in interest as LG Display Co., Ltd. Br.
2.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed Dec. 15, 2008
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed Oct. 30, 2013 (Final), the Appeal Brief
filed Mar. 28, 2014 (Br.), and the Examiner's Answer mailed July 21, 2014
(Ans.).
Appeal2015-000737
Application 12/314,640
anticipated by Hisada,3 and claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hisada. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons given by the Examiner, we AFFIRM. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant concentrates their arguments on the rejection of claim 6.
Br. 2-5. For both the anticipation and obviousness rejections the issue is:
Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding that
Hisada describes a display device with "a back cover receiving the backlight
unit and to function as a bottom cover and a lower case of the display
device." Compare Final 2, Ans. 2-5 with Br. 2-5.
Claim 6, with the limitation at issue highlighted, reads:
Claim 6: A display device comprising:
a display panel;
a panel guide supporting the display panel;
a backlight unit emitting light to the display panel;
a front cover enclosing an outer surface of the display
panel and to function as a top case and an upper case of the
display device; and
a back cover receiving the backlight unit and to function
as a bottom cover and a lower case of the display device.
Claims Appendix, Br. 7 (emphasis added). Appellant's Specification depicts
the back cover in Figures 2 and 4 at 130 and 230, respectively.
The Examiner finds that Hisada describes a display device with a back
cover 60 as shown in Figure 2. Final 3. Figure 2 is reproduced below:
3 Hisada, US 2009/0268121 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009.
2
Appeal2015-000737
Application 12/314,640
Figure 2 is a sectional view of display device 20 of Hisada
As found by the Examiner, Hisada describes a display device (20)
complete with a display panel (30), a panel guide (inner frame 80), a
backlight unit (cold-cathode tubes 56 and diffuser plate 51 ), a front cover
(outer frame 3 5), and back cover (base tray 60 with metallic base panel 61 ).
The base tray 60 functions as a back cover and as a bottom cover and
a lower case as there is no part of the display device 20 behind the base tray
60. See Figs. 1 and 2. The back cover receives the backlight unit as it
receives the tubes 65 and diffuser plate 51 that function to provide
backlighting. See Fig. 2.
Appellant contends that the base tray 60 merely functions to contain a
plurality of tubes 65 and is at most an internal part, but Hisada discloses that
what is shown in Figures 1 and 2 is a display device in its entirety. This
disclosure indicates that the device that functions as a display includes all
the necessary parts of the display including the LCD panel 20, backlight
3
Appeal2015-000737
Application 12/314,640
components, and the portions of the assembly that position and cover those
components including the base tray 60 that functions as the back cover. The
evidence does not support the Appellant's contention that the back cover is
an internal part.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED
4