Ex Parte KO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2003

09109403 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SUNG-WOO KO
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
____________
HEARD: January 14, 2003
____________
Before THOMAS, BARRY, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 14.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a shadow mask for a flat
cathode ray tube. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced
as follows:
1. A shadow mask for a flat cathode ray tube, which has a
plurality of pores for discriminating electron beams emitted from
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
Page 2
1 We rely upon the translation provided by the USPTO, a copy of which is
attached to this decision. Although the translation refers to the inventor
as "So," we observe that the document appears to be the same document referred
to as "Seo" by appellant and the examiner.
electron guns by colors, and a vibration attenuation device
disposed in a space between the pores, the shadow mask being
provided with at least one reference portion for determining the
position at which the vibration attenuation device is installed,
wherein the reference portion differs in shape or size from the
pores of the shadow mask.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Seo1 KR 94-11640 Dec. 22, 1994

Claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Seo.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,
we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 22,
2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 18, filed March 30, 2001)
for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
Page 3
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Each of independent claims 1, 3, and 5-9 recite that “the
shadow mask being provided with at least one reference portion.”
Independent claim 10 similarly recites “wherein the shadow mask
further includes at least one reference portion.”
Appellant asserts (brief, page 3) that “the shadow mask
according to the Appellant’s’s claimed invention allows accurate
positioning of the damper wire on the shadow mask by referring to
a reference portion indicated on the shadow mask itself when
mounting the damper wire to the shadow mask.” Appellant argues
(brief, page 4) that Seo "does not teach, explicitly or
inherently, a 'reference portion.'”
The examiner’s position (answer, pages 5 and 6) is that the
reference portion in Seo is the point where wires 21 are
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
Page 4
mounted/fastened on the edges or frame of shadow mask 7 (figure
6), and that (answer, page 6) “[t]herefore, unless the Appellant
defines, in claims 1 and 10, ‘the shadow mask having reference
portion’ to be anything more specific, the examiner can
reasonable define any point of shadow mask, ie edge or frame, to
be reference portion of shadow mask.”
We find that Seo (page 5) is directed to a shadow mask
vibration damping device for a flat color CRT, in which shadow
mask support wires are fixed so they pass between the shadow
masks apertures, thereby preventing the support wires from
blocking the apertures. Although Seo does not specifically
disclose the use of reference portions, we agree with the
examiner (answer, page 6) to the extent that as broadly claimed,
any point of the shadow mask can be defined as a portion of the
shadow mask. However, it is at this point that we part company
with the examiner. As noted by appellant (brief, page 4) Seo
discloses that wire 21 is fixed to the back of the support frame
8. Because the examiner (answer, page 3) relies upon the “point
where wires 21 are mounted” (See also pages 5 and 6) as the
reference portion, we find that the reference portion, as
advanced by the examiner, is on frame 8. However, each of the
independent claims require the reference portion to be on the
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
Page 5
shadow mask, not the frame or rail to which the shadow mask is
attached. We observe that both appellant’s specification (page
5) and Seo (page 5) define the shadow mask and frame as separate
elements. Because the "point where wires 21 are mounted" is on
the frame and not on the shadow mask of Seo, we find that Seo
does not anticipate the claims before us on appeal, which require
that the reference points be on the shadow mask.
In addition, each of claims 1, 3, and 5-9 recite that “the
shadow mask being provided with at least one reference portion
for determining the position at which the vibration attenuation
device is installed.” Because Seo uses oblique lines at an angle
of inclination
or at right angles to the horizontal axis to
position the wires (figures (3A) and 6(A), and page 6) we do not
agree with the examiner that the point where the wires are
connected to be reference portions "for determining the position
at which the vibration attenuation device is installed" as
recited in independent claims 1, 3, and 5-9." Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of the claims as
advanced by the examiner. We therefore reverse the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
Page 6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1, 3, 5-10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SSL/kis
Appeal No. 2001-2370
Application No. 09/109,403
Page 7
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH
P. O. BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747