Ex parte SAMPICA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 1998

08431211 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 1998)

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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JAMES D. SAMPICA,
MELVIN L. CAMPBELL, C. JOHN ANDERSON,
AND DUANE SCHLATTER
_______________
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application 08/431,2111
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 through 7 and 11 through 14. Claim 3 has been
canceled and claims 8 through 10, 15 and 16 have been indicated
by the examiner as being allowable.
The invention pertains to liquid crystal displays and, more
particularly, to a liquid crystal display [LCD] laminated with a
silicon gel adhesive to which optical components are attached.

1 Application for patent filed April 28, 1995.
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
2
This is said to minimize strain on the LCD and to allow
disassembly of the optical components without damaging the LCD.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A liquid crystal display stack-up comprising:
a liquid crystal display having a first surface;
a first optical component having a first surface;
the first surface of the liquid crystal display and the
first surface of the first optical component are substantially
planar glass surface; and
a first layer of silicone gel positioned between the first
surface of the liquid crystal display and the first surface of
the first optical component, the first layer of silicone gel
attaching the first optical component to the liquid crystal
display.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Iwashita et al. 4,715,686 Dec. 29, 1987
(Iwashita)
Filas et al. 5,217,811 Jun. 8, 1993
(Filas)
Kawaguchi et al. 5,243,453 Sep. 7, 1993
(Kawaguchi)
Sirkin et al. 5,275,680 Jan. 4, 1994
(Sirkin)
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
' 103 as unpatentable over Sirkin in view of Filas. Claims 12
and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over
Sirkin in view of Filas in further view of Iwashita. Claims 1,
4, 5, 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
unpatentable over Kawaguchi.
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
3
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the evidence before us and,
based on such evidence, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections.
First, with regard to the rejection based on Kawaguchi, and
specifically focusing on independent claim 1, the examiner
identifies (at the top of page 3 of Paper No. 4) various sections
of the Kawaguchi reference which disclose the claimed invention.
As we understand the examiner’s position, looking at Figure 4 of
the reference, Kawaguchi clearly shows a LCD 15, an outer casing
17 and a silicone gel 19 sandwiched therebetween. Clearly, the
outer casing 17 is an “optical component,” as claimed.
Appellants argue, at pages 3-5 of the brief, that Kawaguchi
fails to show a “glass to glass” bond and that the examiner’s
reliance on glass substrates being known is misplaced because the
claims are directed to more than “just a piece of glass.”
We do not find appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
Kawaguchi clearly discloses a LCD 15 having a first surface and
an optical component 17 having a first surface wherein a layer of
silicone gel is positioned between the first surfaces and
attaches the optical component to the LCD. The only issue is
whether Kawaguchi suggested that these two first surfaces should
be “substantially planar glass surfaces,” as claimed. There is
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
4
no argument that the surfaces depicted by Kawaguchi are
“substantially planar.” Therefore, we must determine if there is
a fair suggestion by Kawaguchi that these surfaces be “glass.”
It is clear to us, for the reasons given by the examiner at
page 4 of the answer, that Kawaguchi strongly suggests that these
surfaces should be of glass. Since Kawaguchi indicates, at
column 7, line 19, that “outer case 17 has high transparency”
and, at lines 26-27, that the outer case also is “formed of
strong hard material,” it is our view, as it was the examiner’s,
that such a description of the properties of the outer case would
have led the artisan to employ glass as the outer case. While
there may be materials, other than glass, which would fit this
description, it is our view that given the description of a
strong, hard material that is also transparent, the artisan would
have first been led to glass. This is made even more suggestive,
in our view, by the disclosure, by Kawaguchi, at column 7, lines
42-45, that LCD 15 is made by “sandwiching a liquid crystal
material between two glass plates…” [emphasis ours]. Quite
clearly, when Kawaguchi was interested in a strong, hard
transparent material for sandwiching liquid crystal material,
Kawaguchi turned to glass.
Thus, we are persuaded that the skilled artisan, viewing the
totality of the Kawaguchi reference, would have been led to use
glass as the first surface of both the LCD and the optical
component.
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
5
Turning now to the rejections based on Sirkin as the primary
reference, we will also sustain these rejections because
appellants’ only argument is to point to the glass to glass bond
limitation of the claims, as they did with the rejection based on
Kawaguchi, and reassert the same arguments “except that all
references to the ‘Kawaguchi’ [sic, Kawaguchi reference] therein
should be changed to the ‘Sirkin’ reference” [brief, page 5].
The examiner has reasonably explained, at pages 4-5 of Paper
No. 4, how Sirkin, in combination with other references, is
applied against the instant claims, identifying the liquid
crystal cells and an optional anti-reflective sheet of glass in
Sirkin as optical elements and pointing out how the lamination of
these elements with a silicone gel is fairly suggested.
Therefore, in our view, the examiner has clearly established a
prima facie case of obviousness and, contrary to appellants’
assertion, has clearly considered the glass to glass bond
limitation of the claims.
Since appellants have made no other arguments, and the
examiner has established a reasonable case for a finding of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter, we will sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7 and 11 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
' 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-3474
Application No. 08/431,211
7
John D. Veldhuis-Kroeze
Rockwell International Corporation
400 Collins Road NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52498