Ex Parte Masaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2003

09175407 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TADAHIRO MASAKI
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
____________
HEARD: February 19, 2003
____________
Before GROSS, LEVY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 10, and 11. Claims 5 through 9
have been allowed by the examiner.
Appellant's invention relates to a light guide plate for use
in a surface light source of a liquid crystal display and the
method of making such a light guide plate. Specifically, the
light guide plate is a molded product of an ionizing-radiation-
curable resin and has a maximum thickness less than or equal to
1.0 mm. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A light guide plate for use in the surface light source
equipment of a liquid crystal display or the like, wherein the
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
2
light guide plate is a molded product of an ionizing-radiation-
curable resin, and its maximum thickness of the plate is 1.0 mm
or less.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Nishio et al. (Nishio) 5,714,218 Feb. 03, 1998
Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa) 5,967,637 Oct. 19, 1999
(filed Aug. 29, 1995)
Claims 1 through 4, 10, and 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio in view of
Ishikawa.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed July 27, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
18, filed May 15, 2001) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 20, filed
September 17, 2001) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 4, 10,
and 11.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that Nishio discloses
"an ionizing radiation curable resin composition for optical
article, and surface source, . . . comprising a light guide plate
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
3
(51), by process of ionizing radiation curable resin composition
(line 64-67, column 3)." We agree that Nishio discloses an
optical article formed of an ionizing radiation-curable resin.
Nishio also discloses a light guide plate (51) for use in a
surface light source for a liquid crystal display. However, as
pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 6, and Reply Brief, page
2), Nishio (column 5, line 64-column 6, line 9) defines "optical
article" as:
a unidirectional or bidirectional array of fine unit
lenses or prisms, such as a lenticular lens as
hereinafter described. More specifically, the optical
article includes light diffusing plates and light
collecting plates for a back light of transmission LCD,
electric decorative boards, advertizing displays, etc.;
screens of projection TV sets; lenticular lenses,
Fresnel lenses and retroflection sheets for light
collecting lenses; diffraction gratings; holograms; and
recording media having modulated grooves or pits so as
to record and reproduce information utilizing changes
in reflectance or transmittance of light, such as
compact discs and videodiscs. Many of these optical
articles have on their surface a fine structure for
efficiently reflecting, refracting or collecting light.
Nishio further reveals (column 19, lines 2-7) that the surface
light source is composed of a light source 52 at the edge of a
light conducting plate 51, a light reflecting layer 53 on the
back of the light conducting plate, and "optical article (lens
array sheet) 9 of the present invention." Thus, contrary to the
examiner's assertion, Nishio specifies a light guide plate as
separate and different from the ionizing radiation-curable resin
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
4
optical article. In other words, Nishio fails to disclose a
light guide plate of an ionizing radiation-curable resin.
In addition, the examiner admits (Answer, page 4) that
Nishio lacks the claimed maximum thickness of 1 mm or less for
the light guide plate. Therefore, the examiner turns to
Ishikawa, stating (Answer, page 4) that Ishikawa's light guide
plate "has a small thickness at a lower surface of about 1mm to
100mm (line 51-61, column 2)." Appellant does not dispute that
Ishikawa's lower surface is as small as 1 mm. However, appellant
argues (Brief, page 8) that the maximum thickness of Ishikawa's
plate is greater than 1 mm, since a lower surface of about 1 to 2
mm means an upper surface (which is bigger than the lower
surface) must be greater than 1 mm. Accordingly, appellant
contends that Ishikawa fails to meet the thickness limitation of
the claims.
The examiner (Answer, page 4) contends that "[n]owhere in
claim 1 is it disclosed to [sic] which portion of the light guide
plate possess [sic] the maximum thickness." Therefore, the
examiner maintains that the 1 mm thickness of Ishikawa's lower
portion meets the claim limitation. We find the examiner's
position to be without merit. The claim recites "the maximum
thickness of the plate is 1.0 mm or less." The only reasonable
interpretation is that the maximum thickness across the entire
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
5
light guide is less than or equal to 1.0 mm. Thus, the
examiner's assertions notwithstanding, Ishikawa fails to disclose
a light guide plate with a maximum thickness less than or equal
to 1 mm. As the examiner has not found the claimed light guide
plate of an ionizing-radiation-curable resin nor the claimed
thickness of the plate, he has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of the claims.
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
6
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4,
10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
AG/RWK
Appeal No. 2002-0530
Application No. 09/175,407
7
PARKHURST & WENDEL
1421 PRINCE STREET
SUITE 210
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2805