Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2010

11122400 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YONG-IL KIM
____________

Appeal 2009-002447
Application 11/122,400
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: February 22, 2010
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, EDWARD C. KIMLIN, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14-30, 33 and 34. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2009-002447
Application 11/122,400

Appellant claims a backlight assembly comprising lamps 22, lamp
holders 30, a fixing member 90 receiving the lamp holders and a reflecting
sheet 10 comprising a bottom portion 110 covering a bottom surface of the
fixing member, and an inclined portion 102, 104 extending from the bottom
portion and covering a side of the fixing member such that an exposed
surface of the lamp holder is exposed through the inclined portion (claim 1;
Figs. 1-4).
Appellant also claims the previously described backlight assembly
wherein a reflecting sheet further comprises side portions 102, 104, 106, 108
including the inclined portion 102, 104 and wherein adjacent side portions
overlap each other and are attached to each other 1061, 1081 (claim 12; Fig.
4).
Representative claims 1 and 12 read as follows:
1. A backlight assembly comprising:

lamps supplying light;

lamp holders holding the lamps and having exposed surfaces;

a fixing member receiving the lamp holders; and

a reflecting sheet comprising:

a bottom portion covering a bottom surface of the fixing
member; and

an inclined portion extending from the bottom portion,
covering a side of the fixing member and reflecting light
emitted by the lamps such that an exposed surface of the lamp
holder is exposed through the inclined portion.

2
Appeal 2009-002447
Application 11/122,400

12. The backlight assembly of claim 1, wherein the reflecting sheet
further comprises:

side portions that extend from edges of the bottom portion to cover
sides of the fixing member, each of the side portions including the inclined
portion, and

wherein adjacent side portions overlap each other and are attached to
each other.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Tsai 6,722,773 B2 Apr. 20, 2004
Kanatsu 6,867,825 B2 Mar. 15, 2004
Peng 7,063,439 B2 Jun. 20, 2006
Katsuda 7,086,774 B2 Aug. 08, 2006
Claims 1-7, 12, 14-16, 18-26, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanatsu, and the remaining claims on
appeal are correspondingly rejected as being obvious over Kanatsu in
various combinations with Peng, Tsai, and Katsuda.
Appellant’s arguments are directed to the limitations of representative
claim 1 (App. Br. 4-8). Dependent claim 12 has been separately argued
(App. Br. 8-11). No other claims including the separately rejected claims
have been separately argued by Appellant within any reasonable specificity
(App. Br. 11-12). Therefore, in assessing the merits of the rejections before
us, we will focus on representative claims 1 and 12.
In rejecting representative independent claim 1, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to make Kanatsu’s back reflector
8 and inclined frame reflector 12b integral (Ans. para. bridging 3-4).
Appellant argues: “there exists no motivation to combine back reflector 8
3
Appeal 2009-002447
Application 11/122,400

and inclined reflector portion 12b of Kanatsu to form the single whole
member of the ‘reflecting sheet’ as claimed” (App. Br. 6); if so combined,
“the back reflector 8 could not be removed to access the lamps 20 [sic, 10]
for replacement” (id. at 7); and such a combination would not result in “an
inclined portion extending from the bottom portion of the reflecting
sheet” as recited in representative claim 1 (id.).1
These arguments are unpersuasive.
It is undisputed in the record of this appeal that Kanatsu discloses
“[t]he back reflector [8] is connected to the frame 1 with screws (not
shown), whereby the liquid crystal display device is assembled as an integral
unit” (col. 6, ll. 20-22). Significantly, inclined reflector 12b of frame 6 is
between back reflector 8 and frame 1 whereby connecting back reflector 8 to
frame 1 with screws would likewise connect the back reflector to the
inclined reflector 12b of frame 6, thus resulting in an integral unit. At
minimum, Kanatsu’s above-quoted disclosure would have suggested making

1 In the Reply Brief, Appellant also presents arguments against the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide Kanatsu
with a fixing member having a bottom surface (Reply Br. 4-10).
Significantly, these Reply Brief arguments could have been but were not
presented in the Appeal Brief even though the Appeal Brief acknowledged
the obviousness conclusion in question (App. Br. para. bridging 5-6). In the
record before us, Appellant has not explained why these new Reply Brief
arguments were not presented in the Appeal Brief. Under these
circumstances, Appellant’s new arguments in the Reply Brief are untimely
and will not be considered in our disposition of this Appeal. See Optivus
Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (Argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief that could gave
been raised in the opening Brief is waived). See also 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(vii)(2007).
4
Appeal 2009-002447
Application 11/122,400

back reflector 8 and the inclined reflector 12b of frame 6 integral by
connecting them with screws.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the motivation to connect the
back reflector 8 and the inclined reflector portion 12b would be to obtain an
integral unit as desired by Kanatsu. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s
argument, connecting the back reflector 8 and inclined reflector 12b with
screws would not render the back reflector incapable of being removed to
access lamps 10 for replacement. As correctly indicated by the Examiner
(Ans. 9), the back reflector would be removed simply by unscrewing it from
inclined reflector 12b. Finally, Appellant is incorrect in believing that the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Kanatsu’s back reflector 8 and inclined
reflector 12b would not result in “an inclined portion extending from the
bottom portion” as required by claim 1. When viewed from the reference
point where Kanatsu’s inclined reflector 12b (i.e., the claimed inclined
portion) connects to back reflector 8 (i.e., the claimed bottom portion), the
inclined reflector necessarily extends from the back reflector as claimed by
Appellant.
For the above-stated reasons, we perceive no error in the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Kanatsu.
Regarding the corresponding rejection of claim 12, Appellant argues
the Examiner has erred in finding that the adjacent side portions of
Kanatsu’s reflecting sheet overlap each other as required by the rejected
claim (App. Br. 9-11). We agree. As shown in Figures 3, 8, and 9,
Kanatsu’s reflecting side portions 12c and 8a abut, but do not overlap, each
other. The Examiner has reproduced Kanatsu’s Figure 3 with an X-axis and
a Y-axis added thereto (Ans. 11) and urges that the required overlap is
5
Appeal 2009-002447
Application 11/122,400

“clearly depicted” along the X-axis (Ans. 10, last para.). However, we do
not perceive Appellant’s claimed overlap in the Examiner’s reproduction of
Kanatsu’s Figure 3.
Under these circumstances, we consider the Examiner’s contrary
finding to be erroneous.
In light of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 12 as being obvious over Kanatsu. However, we sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of the remaining claims on appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ssl

CANTOR COLBURN, LLP
20 CHURCH STREET
22ND FLOOR
HARTFORD, CT 06103
6