Ex parte Strik

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 1997

08023665 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 1997)

Application for patent filed February 26, 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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WILHELMUS J.A. STRIK

_____________
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,6651
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, KRASS and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
2
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, which constitute all
the claims in the application.
The claimed invention pertains to a display device having
picture electrodes arranged in rows and columns. One aspect of
the invention is that picture elements in consecutive rows are
offset with respect to each other by a distance covering half a
pitch. Another aspect of the invention is that various wiring
components of the device are arranged substantially mirror-
symmetrically with respect to a direction transverse to the row
direction for pixels associated with consecutive rows.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A display device comprising an electro-optical
display medium between two supporting plates, a system of pixels
arranged in rows and columns, with each pixel being formed by
picture electrodes arranged on the facing surfaces of the
supporting plates, and a system of row and column electrodes for
presenting selection and data signals, a picture electrode on one
of the supporting plates being connected in an electrically
conducting manner to a first switching unit between a column
electrode for data signals and the picture electrode and to a
second switching unit between the picture electrode and an
electrode for a reference voltage, characterized in that the
pixels in consecutive rows are offset with respect to each other
in the row direction by a distance covering half a pitch, and in
that the patterns of switching units, picture electrodes, column
electrodes and electordes for the reference voltage are arranged
substantially mirror-symmetrically with respect to a direction
transverse to the row direction for pixels associated with
consecutive rows.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
3
Piper 4,812,017 Mar. 14, 1989
Kuijk 5,032,831 July 16, 1991
Hamada et al. (Hamada) 5,144,288 Sep. 01, 1992
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Kuijk in view of
Piper with respect to claims 1 and 4, and adds Hamada with
respect to claims 2, 3 and 5.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
4
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1-5. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kuijk and
Piper. Appellant has indicated that these claims stand or fall
together [brief, page 5]. Thus, we will consider the rejection
of independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this
rejection.
The examiner’s position is that Kuijk teaches all the
recitations of claim 1 except for the half a pitch offset between
consecutive rows. The examiner cites Piper as supplying this
teaching and provides an analysis as to why Kuijk would have been
modified with the teachings of Piper to arrive at the invention
of claim 1 [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues that the
applied prior art would not suggest the recitation of claim 1
relating to the mirror-symmetry of the components [brief, pages
6-7, reply brief, pages 2-3]. The examiner responds that the
mirror symmetry is met by the teachings of Kuijk. For reasons
which we will discuss in more detail below, we agree with
appellant’s position.
As a general rule in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
5
§ 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual
basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
6
When these rules are considered under the facts of this
case, we agree with appellant that the proposed combination of
the teachings of Kuijk with the teachings of Piper would not
result in the claimed invention. The examiner has recognized
that Kuijk fails to suggest the half a pitch offset of pixels in
consecutive rows. The examiner also relies on Kuijk for the
mirror-symmetry relationship. However, when the Kuijk display
device is modified to include a half a pitch offset as suggested
by Piper, the Kuijk display device would no longer have the
symmetry with which it started. In other words, the modification
proposed by the examiner would destroy one of the features relied
on to support the rejection. Thus, neither reference teaches the
claimed display device which has both the property of half a
pitch offset and the simultaneous mirror-symmetry of the
components.
As pointed out by appellant, the straightforward
modification of the Kuijk display device with the Piper offset
would result in a display device which lacks the claimed
symmetry. Since the examiner has not addressed the question of
why it would have been obvious to the artisan to retain the
mirror-symmetry of Kuijk while offsetting the picture electrodes
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
7
of consecutive rows, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The only basis on this record to make
the collective teachings of Kuijk and Piper equate to the claimed
invention would result from a hindsight reconstruction of the
disclosed invention, and such reconstruction would be improper.
For all the reasons just discussed, the record in this
case does not support the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 4.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kuijk,
Piper and Hamada. Appellant indicates that these claims stand or
fall together [brief, page 5]. These claims are all dependent
claims which depend from claim 1. For reasons discussed above,
the invention of claim 1 is not suggested by the collective
teachings of Kuijk and Piper. Therefore, the first question to
be considered is whether the teachings of Hamada overcome the
deficiencies present in the rejection of claim 1.
Hamada was cited only for its teaching of a picture
device having components in the shape of a hexagon. This hexagon
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
8
characteristic of the display is recited only in the dependent
claims. Hamada provides no teachings relevant to the formation
of a display device having both the property of half a pitch
offset and the claimed mirror-symmetry. Thus, we find nothing in
Hamada which corrects the deficiencies in the teachings of Kuijk
and Piper. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 as proposed by the examiner based
upon the record before us.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
rejections set forth by the examiner. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-5 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
9
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
U.S. Philips Corporation
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591