Ex parte STOLLE

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 1998

08034845 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 19, 1993.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RAY A. STOLLER
__________
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,8451
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before FLEMING, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final
rejection of claims 5 and 7 through 15, all of the claim
present in the application. Claims 1 through 4, 6 and 16
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
2
have been canceled.
Appellant's invention relates to AC plasma display panel
systems which are particularly adapted for presentation
displays with large viewing angle and high visibility in
sunlight.
Independent claims 5, 7 and 11 are reproduced as
follows:
5. In an AC plasma display panel having a linear row
electrode array on a first substrate having first and
second sides and a linear column electrode array on a
second substrate having third and forth sides, said row
and column electrodes defining a matrix of display
pixels, dielectric coating means on said electrode
arrays, means spacing said electrode arrays apart a
predetermined discharge gap distance and a gaseous
discharge medium filling the space between said electrode
arrays at predetermined gas pressure, the improvement for
enhancing brightness and contrast of subject matter
displayed on said panel, comprising:
each electrode in said linear row electrode
array is constituted by first and second
furcated row conductors, the first of said
furcated row conductors being driven from one
end of said first substrate and the other of
said furcated row conductors being driven from
the opposite end of said first substrate,
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
3
each electrode in said linear column conductor
array being constituted by a furcated column
conductor, oriented transverse to said linear
row electrodes to define a plurality of
rectangularly blocked sub-pixels for each said
display pixel,
the spacing between each linear row electrode in
said linear row electrode array being greater
than the spacing of said furcated row
conductors, and the spacing between column
electrodes in said linear column electrode array
being greater than the spacing between said
furcated column conductors to provide greater
discrimination or contrast between each said
display pixel, and high overall pixel
brightness.
7. A high brightness AC plasma display device
comprising:
a) a first substrate having a first array of
linear electrodes thereon, each electrode in
said first array of linear electrodes being
constituted by a plurality of parallel
furcations connected to a common source of
operating potentials,
b) a first dielectric layer on said first array
of linear electrodes,
c) a plurality of linear non-conductive barriers
formed in spaced array on said first dielectric
layer and parallel to said plurality of parallel
furcations, to define a plurality of discharge
channels aligned with said linear electrode
array, there being at least two discharge
channels for each electrode in said first array
of linear electrodes and at least one furcation
of an electrode aligned with each said at least
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
4
two discharge channels, respectively,
d) each said linear non-conductive barriers
having pairs of phosphor wall surfaces which are
at an angle to said first substrate, there being
at least four said wall surfaces for each
electrode in said first array of linear
electrodes,
e) a UV responsive photoluminescent phosphor
stripe on each of said wall surfaces, respec-
tively,
f) a second substrate having a second linear
electrode array thereon and arranged
transversely to said first array of linear
electrodes to define a matrix of pixel sites,
g) a second dielectric layer on said second
linear electrode array,
h) seal means joining said substrates together,
and
i) a gas medium filling said channels and sealed
therein by said seal means, said gas medium
producing UV light on discharge by application
of operating potentials to selected electrodes
in said first and second linear electrode
arrays, respectively.
11. A flat, row/column matrix display panel having high
pixel visibility and high contrast between pixels,
comprising, an AC plasma display panel having furcated
row electrode arrays and furcated column electrode
arrays, a dielectric layer having spaced lands forming
gas-filled channels on one of said electrode arrays and
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
5
having the furcated electrodes of said one of said
electrode arrays aligned with said lands, such that a
number of sub-pixels is formed at each crossing of a
furcated row electrode with a furcated column electrode
is the product of the number of furcations in each row
electrode times the number of furcations for each column
electrode, and the edge-to-edge spacing between
electrodes in each array being substantially greater than
the spacing between furcations to provide a small dark
line of separation and greater contrast between pixels.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Grier 3,701,184 Oct. 31, 1972
Holmberg et al. (Holmberg) 4,820,222 Apr. 11, 1989
Buzak et al. (Buzak) 4,896,149 Jan. 23, 1990
Miyake et al. (Miyake) 5,086,297 Feb. 04, 1992
L.E. Tannas, Jr. “Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs” published 1985
by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company (N.Y.), pages 369-390.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grier and Holmberg. Claims 7 through 15
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Miyake and Grier. Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake, Tannas, Buzak and
Grier.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
Appellant filed an appeal brief on October 13, 1994. We2
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on March 9, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as simply the reply
brief. The Examiner responded the reply brief with a
supplemental Examiner's answer and thereby entered the reply
brief into the record. On March 9, 1995, Appellant filed an
amendment. The Examiner stated in the supplemental Examiner's
answer that this amendment is not entered into the record.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief to Supplemental
Examiner's Answer on June 27, 1995. We will refer to this
reply appeal brief as simply the supplemental reply brief.
On June 27, 1995, Appellant filed an amendment which was not
entered into the record. The Examiner stated in the
Examiner’s letter, mailed July 25, 1995 that the supplemental
reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary. The Examiner
also stated in the letter that the June 27, 1995 amendment is
not entered into the record.
The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's3
answer, mailed January 9, 1995. We will refer to the
Examiner's answer as simply the answer. We note that the
answer contains a new ground of rejection rejecting claims 7
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyake, Tannas, Buzak and Grier. The Examiner responded to the
reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer, mailed May
30, 1995. We will refer to the Supplemental Examiner's answer
as simply the supplemental answer.
6
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for2 3
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 5 and 11 through 15 are
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
7
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will
sustain the
rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejection of
the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set forth
infra.
On pages 5-8 of the brief, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable in view
of Grier and Holmberg is improper because there is no teaching
or suggestion that "the first furcated row conductor being
driven from one end of said substrate, the other end of said
furcated row conductor being driven from the opposite end of
said substrate" as required by Appellant's claim 5. We note
that Appellant has misquoted claim 5. Claim 5 actually
recites "the first of said furcated row conductors being
driven from one end of said first substrate and the other of
said furcated row conductors being driven from the opposite
end of said first substrate." Emphasis added.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Holmberg teaches this limitation in Figure 4. Upon a careful
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
8
review, we find that Holmberg teaches in Figure 4 the first of
said furcated row conductors, elements 90 and 94, being driven
from one end of said first substrate via pad 92 and the other
of said furcated row conductors, the two horizonal conductors
electrically connected to pad 102 being driven from the
opposite end of said first substrate via pad 102 as recited in
Appellants’ claim 5.
We find that the Examiner properly found that Holmberg
suggested the desirability modifying the first and second
frucated row conductors of Grier to be driven from opposite
panel ends as taught by Holmberg. In column 5, lines 65-67,
Holmberg teaches that driving the row conductors at opposite
sides provides additional connecting space for the pads. In
view of this teaching, we find that Holmberg suggests to those
skilled in the art to modify Grier in order to provide
additional connecting space. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grier and Holmberg.
Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
9
as being unpatentable over Miyake and Grier. Appellant argues
on pages 8-16 of the brief that neither Miyake or Grier teach
or suggest discharge channels as recited in Appellant's claims
7 through 15.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when
determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be
considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable
'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996),
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
10
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
After a careful review of both Miyake and Grier, we fail
to find any teaching of discharge channels as recited in
Appellant's claims 7 through 15. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake and Grier.
Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Miyake, Tannas, Buzak and Grier.
Appellant argues on pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief that
the Examiner improperly read the Miyake's element 21 as the
claimed "second substrate". Appellant points out that Miyake
discloses in Figure 2 that both electrode arrays 24 and 25 are
on the same substrate 22. Appellant further points out that
Miyake's element 21 does not have any electrode on it, but
rather
Figure 2 shows that element 21 has a phosphor layer or
fluorescent screen 29 thereon.
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
11
The Examiner argues on page 3 of the supplemental answer
the Appellant's "claims never require that the first substrate
and the first array of linear electrodes to be adjacent with
each other, and the second substrate and the second array of
linear electrodes are adjacent to each other." The Examiner
further states:
Even though Figure 2 of Miyake does not show the
second linear electrode array 25 is directly on the
second substrate 21, Figure 2 of Miyake is broadly
interpreted by the Examiner to include a first
substrate (22)having a first array of linear
electrodes (24) thereon, a second substrate (21)
having a second array of linear electrodes (25)
thereon (phosphor screen 29, cell barrier 23, layers
28, 27, and electrodes 25 are interpreted to be
included in the substrate 21).
Appellant responds to these Examiner's arguments on page
2 of the supplemental reply brief that Appellant's claims
require a linear electrode array directly thereon the second
substrate.
We note that Appellant's claim 7 recites "a first substrate
having a first array of linear electrodes thereon." We
further note that Appellant's claim 7 recites "a second
substrate having a second linear electrode array thereon." We
note that the Appellant has argued that this claim language
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
12
requires a first array placed directly thereon the second
substrate, we find that Appellant's claim language recites
this limitation. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7
through 10 which recite such a limitation.
However, upon reviewing claims 11 through 15, we fail to
find that these claims recite a second substrate having a
second linear electrode array thereon. At the outset, we note
that Appellant has indicated on page 5 of the brief the claims
stand or fall together. In addition, on pages 1 through 4 of
the reply brief as well as the supplemental brier, Appellant
argues claims 11 through 15 as a group. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)
amended October 22, 1993 states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant
contests and which applies to more than one claim,
it will be presumed that the rejected claims stand
or fall together unless a statement is included that
the rejected claims do not stand or fall together,
and in the appropriate part or parts of the argument
under subparagraph (c)(6) of this section appellant
presents reasons as to why appellant considers the
rejected claims to be separately patentable.
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
13
As per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), which was controlling at the time
of Appellants filing the brief, we will, thereby, consider
Appellant’s claims 11 through 15 to stand or fall together,
with claim 11 being considered the representative claim.
Appellant argues that none of the references discloses or
suggests the Examiner's combination as claimed. Appellant
states
that the Examiner's assertion is that Miyake has phosphor on
walls, Tannas has AC dielectric layers, Buzak has channels and
Grier has furcations. Appellant argues that the portion of
each reference used have been pulled out and then reassembled
following the Appellant's claims not by suggestions in the
art.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he 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." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
14
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
However, we note that the Examiner did provide reasons
which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
to make the Examiner's proposed modifications. Appellant has
not provided in the briefs any specific arguments as to the
Examiner's reasoning as to why those skilled in the art would
have made the combination.
The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73
F.3d at 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d at 1239-40, that for the
determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill
in the art who sets out to solve the problem and who had
before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellant. Furthermore, the test of obviousness is not
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
15
whether features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference's structure, nor
whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any
one or all of the references; rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
We fail to find the Examiner has erred in the rejection
of claims 11 through 15 as being unpatentable over Miyake,
Tannas, Buzak and Grier. Appellant has chosen not to argue
why the reasons provided by the Examiner are not proper as a
basis for combinability. We are not required to raise and/or
consider such
issues. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed.
Cir. 1991), "[i]t is not the function of this court to examine
the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
16
for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a) as amended at 58 Fed. Reg. 54510, Oct. 22, 1993,
which
was controlling at the time of Appellants filing the brief,
states as follows:
The brief . . . must set forth the authorities and
arguments on which the appellant will rely to
maintain the appeal. Any arguments or authorities
not included in the brief may be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) states:
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and, if
appropriate, the specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior
art relied on in the rejection, and shall explain
how such limitations render the claimed subject
matter unobvious over the prior art. If the
rejection is based upon a combination of references,
the argument shall explain why the references, taken
as a whole, do not suggest the claimed subject
matter, and shall include, as may be appropriate, an
explanation of why features disclosed in one
reference may not properly be combined with features
disclosed in another reference. A general argument
that all the limitations are not described in a
single reference does not satisfy the requirements
of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not required to raise
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
17
and/or consider such issues.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 5 and 11 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed; however, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 7 through 10 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 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
18
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
19
Jim Zegeer
801 North Pitt Street
Suite 108
Alexandria, VA 22314