Ex Parte Krijn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2014

12064636 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte MARCELLINUS PETRUS CAROLUS KRIJN,1
Michel Cornelis Josephus Vissenberg,
Willem Lubertus Ijzerman, Hugo Johan Cornelissen, and
Ramon Pascal Van Gorkom
________________

Appeal 2013-001138
Application 12/064,636
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Marcellinus Petrus Carolus Krijn,
Michel Cornelis Josephus Vissenberg, Willem Lubertus Ijzerman,
Hugo Johan Cornelissen, and Ramon Pascal Van Gorkom (“Krijn”) timely
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of claims 1–16.

1 The real party in interest is listed as Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
(Appeal Brief, filed 29 May 2012 (“Br.”), 2.)
2 Office action mailed 18 October, 2011 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2013-001138
Application 12/064,636

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse substantially for the
reasons given by Krijn.
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to backlight illumination modules
for liquid crystal displays (“LCD”). In particular, the ʼ636 Specification
discloses that the modules are intended for use with “matrix illumination.”
(Spec. 1, l. l. 8.) The Specification describes a matrix illumination module
as one “comprising a number of light sources that emit collimated light such
that the light sources can still be recognized in the far field.” (Id. at ll. 9-11.)
Such an arrangement is achieved by providing output coupling structures
that mix a portion of at least two adjacent light sources into a substantially
collimated mixed light beam. (Id. at 2, ll. 19-25.)
Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
An illumination module (1) comprising
a plurality of light sources (2;R,G,B) distributed over
a light guiding plate (3)
accommodating said light sources and
capable of guiding light of said light sources through at
least a portion of said plate,
wherein said light guiding plate comprises

3 Application 12/064,636, Illumination Module, filed 25 February 2008,
claiming the benefit of an application filed in the EPO on 24 August 2005.
We refer to the “ʼ636 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”
Appeal 2013-001138
Application 12/064,636

3
one or more out-coupling structures (4) such that at
least a portion of the light emitted by a first light
source (2A) and at least a portion of the light emitted
by a second adjacent light source (2B) mix within said
light guiding plate before leaving said illumination
module as a single substantially collimated mixed light
beam (L).
(Claims App., Br. 13, some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
An embodiment of the invention is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced
below:

{Fig. 4 shows an illumination module 1 with light-guiding plate 3
comprising output coupling structures 4.4}
Red light from LED 2R and green light from LED 2G are in-coupled into
light-guiding plate 3 by grooves 6 (Spec. 7, ll. 26–28), and out-coupled from
light-guiding plate 3 by grooves 4 (id. at ll. 31–33). Additional layer 7 has a
higher refractive index than the layer with grooves 4 to provide a
substantially collimated light beam L. (Id. at l. 33 to 4, l. 1.)

4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements in figures are
presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original
document.
Appeal 2013-001138
Application 12/064,636

4
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5
A. Claims 1–6 and 8–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
in view of Hoshi.6
A1. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Hoshi and Hu.7
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
In Krijn’s view (Br. 8, ll. 7-10; Reply, para. bridging 3-4), the
Examiner erred in reading the recited out-coupling structure on structures 32
(FR 2, l. 17); and 30A (Ans. 4, ll. 21–28) shown below in Hoshi, Figure 5.

{Hoshi Fig. 5 shows light-guide plate 30 with recessed part 32;
annotation added}

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 24 August 2012 (“Ans.”).
6 Mitsunari Hoshi, Light guide plate, backlight unit and method of
manufacturing the same, and liquid crystal display, U.S. Patent
No. 7,780,306 B2 (24 August 2010), based on an application
filed 22 November 2006.
7 Darwin Hu and Kebin Li, Backlighting in liquid crystal flat panel display,
U.S. Patent No. 7,324,080 B1 (29 January 2008), based on an application
filed an application filed 3 December 2004.
Appeal 2013-001138
Application 12/064,636

5
The weight of the evidence advanced by the Examiner and by Krijn
supports Krijn. The function of the out-coupling structure is described in the
Specification as accomplishing the “[m]ixture of light . . . by arrangement of
the out-coupling structures so that two or more light sources use or share an
out-coupling structure to obtain collimated light from the illumination
module” (Spec. 2, ll. 23-25). That same function is reasonably recited in
claim 1, supra. Thus, out-coupling structures couple light out of the light-
guiding plate 3. As Krijn urges, Hoshi describes the function of surface 32S
as providing total internal reflection of light ray L1 “into the light guide
plate 30, and is basically guided inside the light guide plate 30 while
repeating total reflection at the interface between the light guide plate 30 and
air present on the upper and lower sides of the light guide plate 30.” (Hoshi,
col. 6, ll. 55-60.) Thus, the upper surface 30A provides total internal
reflection for light rays L1.
Although terms in claims are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation, in light of the Specification, that interpretation is from the
point of view of a person having ordinary skill in the art. The plain meaning
of the term “out-coupling structure” is a structure that couples something—
in this case, light—out of the light-guiding plate. The Examiner has not
directed our attention to disclosure in the ʼ636 Specification that indicates a
broader interpretation is appropriate.
The Examiner has misidentified structures in Hoshi as corresponding
to the required out-coupling elements. The Examiner’s findings regarding
other elements recited in claim 1 and in the dependent claims do not correct
this deficit. We therefore reverse the rejection for anticipation. Similarly,
Appeal 2013-001138
Application 12/064,636

6
the Examiner findings regarding Hu do not correct this problem. We
therefore also reverse the rejection for obviousness.
C. Order
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–16.
REVERSED
llw