Ex parte Park

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 9, 2001

08523809 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2001)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JONG-BAE PARK
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1088
Application No. 08/523,809
____________
HEARD: March 7, 2001
____________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal relates to
projector screens. Devices such as flight simulators, traffic
signal lights, and video monitors employ a projector that
generates an image on a projector screen. More specifically,
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 2
Application No. 08/523,809
light from an image source behind the screen is projected
along a projection axis to the front of the screen. When
there are many viewers, the horizontal viewing angle must be
large to allow them all to see a bright image. Also, a large
horizontal viewing angle permits viewers to be situated
somewhere other than directly in front of the screen.
A conventional projector screen features a Fresnel lens
that collimates light received from and magnified by a
projection lens. In front of the Fresnel lens, parallel
lenticular lenses form a lenticular lens system. The
lenticular lenses form an image by spreading the collimated
light. A projection panel is positioned on the viewing side
of the lenticular system. Between the rear of the panel and
the front of the lenticular lenses, projecting parts absorb
part of the light spread from the lenticular lenses. The
projecting parts comprise black stripes painted between
adjacent lenticular lenses and extend outwardly from the
surface of the lenticular system. Such extension limits the
light-scattering angle of the individual lenticular lenses,
thereby restricting the horizontal viewing angle.
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 3
Application No. 08/523,809
The appellant's projector screen also features a Fresnel
lens, lenticular lenses, and a protection panel. Projecting
parts of a predetermined height are formed on the rear side of
the panel facing the lenticular lenses. On the tip of each
projecting part, a black stripe absorbs light. The height of
the projecting parts is lower than that of a convex surface of
the lenticular lenses. In other words, the convex surfaces of
the lenticular lenses extend in the viewer's direction beyond
the black stripes. Because the light-spreading angle is not
unduly limited, the horizontal viewing angle is wider that of
the conventional projector screen.
Claim 1, which is representative for our purposes,
follows:
1. A projector screen comprising:
a Fresnel lens for collimating incident
light from a projection lens equipped in a light
projection apparatus;
a lenticular lens system comprising a
plurality of constituent lenses, extending in
parallel with respect to one another, for forming
and spreading an image from the collimating light by
said Fresnel lens; and
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 4
Application No. 08/523,809
a screen protection panel disposed adjacent
said lenticular lens system,
wherein said screen protection panel is equipped
with a light-absorbing means for absorbing light
spread by said lenticular lens system, and
further comprising a projecting part formed at a
predetermined height on the side of said screen
protection panel that faces said lenticular lens
system, and wherein said light absorbing means
comprises a darkened stripe formed on said
projecting part.
Besides the appellant‘s admitted prior art (AAPA), the
reference relied on in rejecting the claims follows:
Takuma et al. (Takuma) 5,448,401 Sep. 5,
1995
filed Dec. 21, 1993.
Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over AAPA in view of Takuma. Rather than repeat the
arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the
reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 5
Application No. 08/523,809
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellant and examiner. After considering the record, we
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 3-5. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellant's argument.
The examiner makes the following allegation.
[A]s one of ordinary skill in the art views the
admitted prior art of Figure 4, the figure itself
suggests a projection screen unit which includes a
lenticular lens system and a screen protection
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 6
Application No. 08/523,809
panel. This figure not only suggests printing black
stripes 12a on the screen protection panel 13 by its
appearance, but could even be considered a teaching
of the printing of the black stripes on the screen
protection panel.
(Examiner's Answer at 5.) The appellant argues, "there is
still no teaching or suggestion of placing a light-absorbing
means in the form of a darkened stripe directly on the screen
protection panel." (Appeal Br. at 11.)
Claims 1 and 3-5 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a screen protection panel disposed adjacent said
lenticular lens system, wherein said screen protection panel
is equipped with a light-absorbing means for absorbing light
spread by said lenticular lens system ...." Accordingly, the
limitations require a light-absorbing means formed on a screen
protection panel that is lenticular lens system.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 7
Application No. 08/523,809
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996)(citing
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)). “It is impermissible to use the
claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to
piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the
claimed invention is rendered obvious.”
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d
1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “The mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” Id. at 1266,
23 USPQ2d at 1784 (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, although AAPA teaches that "projecting part 12a ...
is formed for absorbing part of light spread from a convex
surface of the individual lenticular lenses 12," (Spec. at 3),
and a "screen protection panel 13 of an acrylic material,"
(id.), the projecting part is not formed on the screen
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 8
Application No. 08/523,809
protection panel. To the contrary, the projecting part is
formed "between the rear side of screen protection panel 13
and the front side of the lenticular lens system ....
Projecting part 12a is formed by black stripes 12b painted
with an opaque ink ... formed between adjacent lenticular
lenses forming the lens system on the tip of projecting part
12a." (Id.) More specifically, Figure 3 shows that the black
stripes are formed on the lenticular lenses rather than on the
protection screen. Relying on Takuma merely to "disclose[] a
lenticular lens system wherein the convex surfaces extend
further towards the viewing side of the projection system than
the black stripes," (Examiner's Answer at 5), the examiner
fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of the
reference cures the deficiency of AAPA.
Because AAPA's black stripes are formed on its lenticular
lenses rather than on its protection screen, we are not
persuaded that teachings from the applied prior art would
appear to have suggested the claimed limitations of "a screen
protection panel disposed adjacent said lenticular lens
system, wherein said screen protection panel is equipped with
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 9
Application No. 08/523,809
a light-absorbing means for absorbing light spread by said
lenticular lens system ...." Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 as obvious over AAPA in view of
Takuma.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 10
Application No. 08/523,809
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 11
Application No. 08/523,809
LLB/kis
Appeal No. 1998-1088 Page 12
Application No. 08/523,809
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037