Ex parte Koenig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 18, 2000

08279304 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WALTER KOENIG

_____________
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application 08/279,304
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 8.
The disclosed invention relates to a liquid crystal
optical display.
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the claimed invention,
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
Copies of the translations of the Japanese patent1
publications are attached.
2
and they read as follows:
1. An optical display, comprising:
(a) a sheet of polymer-dispersed liquid crystal;

(b) lighting means for off-normal illumination of
the sheet; and

(c) different-colored filters, adjacent the sheet.
2. An optical display, comprising:

(a) liquid crystal material which can be placed
into

i) a transmissive state, by application of an
electric field; and
ii) a reflective state, by reduction of said
field; and
(b) color filters, of different colors, through
which light reflected in paragraph (a)(ii)
passes.
The references relied on by the examiner are:1
Nagase 3-166515 July 18, 1991
Kashima et al. (Kashima) 5-196940 Aug. 6,
1993
Claims 2 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Nagase.
Claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
3
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase in view of Kashima.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
2 and 4 through 6, and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8.
The optical display of Nagase (Figures 1 and 6) uses a
polymer dispersed liquid crystal material 24 (translation,
page 3) that can be placed into a transmissive state by
application of an electric field, and into a reflective state
by reduction of that field (translation, pages 7 and 10). The
optical display in Nagase has red, green and blue color
filters 16R, 16G and 16B, respectively, through which the
reflected light passes. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 2 is sustained because all of the
limitations of this claim read on Nagase.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 4 through 6 is
sustained because appellant has chosen to let these claims
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
4
stand or fall with claim 2 (Brief, pages 13 and 16).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Nagase
discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 through 3, 7 and
8 except for an edge lit or off-normal light source. Kashima
discloses a panel backlight that locates a linear light source
4 in close proximity to an end face of a transmissive plate
(translation, pages 15 and 16). The examiner concludes
(Answer, page 3) that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the liquid crystal art to substitute the
edge light source of Kashima et al. for the light source of
Nagase to have small size, uniform brightness and high
efficiency.” None of the advantages ascribed to edge lighting
by the examiner can be found in the teachings of Kashima.
More importantly, Kashima does not express any advantages of
edge lighting over other forms of lighting. In summary, we
agree with the appellant (Brief, pages 17 and 18) that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
of claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8. As a result thereof, the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8 is
reversed.
DECISION
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
5
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 and 4
through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and the
decision of the examiner rejecting claim 1 through 3, 7 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1997-1164
Application No. 08/279,304
7
PAUL J. MAGINOT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION
LAW DEPARTMENT
AT&T GLOBAL INFORMATION SOLUTIONS CO.
DAYTON, OH 45479