Ex parte Tanamachi et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 1999

08149627 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 9, 1993. 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHOICHI TANAMACHI and
KAZUTO KIMURA
____________
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,6271
____________
HEARD: June 7, 1999
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and FRAHM, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 17. According to the examiner (Answer, page 1), claim
16 is now objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
2
intervening claims. Accordingly, claims 1 through 15 and 17
remain before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to the use of adhesive
spacers in a predetermined pattern between a glass substrate
and an intermediate sheet in the liquid crystal cell portion
of a plasma addressed liquid crystal display device.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
1. A plasma addressed liquid crystal display device,
comprising:
a first substrate having a plurality of striped data
electrodes formed substantially in parallel on a
major surface thereof;
a second substrate opposed to the first substrate and
having a plurality of discharge electrodes in a
direction perpendicular to the data electrodes;
an intermediate sheet positioned between the first and
second substrates, so that a discharge chambeer is
formed between the intermediate sheet and the second
substrate;
a plurality of barrier ribs of which top surfaces make
contact with one side of the intermediate sheet, to
form a contacting pattern of the barrier ribs, said
barrier ribs forming recesses therebetween for
containing gas; and
an adhesive spacer provided between the first substrate
and the intermediate sheet to determine a thickness
of liquid crystal layer, said adhesive spacer having a
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
3
pattern corresponding to the contacting pattern,
whereby the adhesive spacer is adhered to the
other side of the intermediate sheet.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Kim 5,338,240 Aug. 16,
1994
(filed July 15, 1992)
Claims 1 through 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in
view of Kim.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 15 and 17.
In the admitted prior art (specification, page 7),
appellants disclose that:
In order to control the gap of the liquid
crystal cell 201 [Figure 13] uniformly, it is a
conventional countermeasure to spray particulates
209 of a fixed particle size at random. Such
particulates 209 are present in the gap and can act
effectively to some degree against deformation in a
compression direction to keep the dimension of the
gap fixed.
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
4
Notwithstanding the presence of the particulates 209 in the
gap, "the intermediate sheet 203 is inclined to be deformed
downwardly by a negative pressure to increase the dimension of
the gap" (specification, page 8). According to the admitted
prior art (specification, page 8), "even if the particulates
209 are sprayed at random so as to be present in the gap, they
float in the liquid crystal layer 208 and do not function
effectively."
The examiner mistakenly concludes (Answer, page 4) that
the particulates 209 in the admitted prior art are adhesive
spacers, but correctly concludes that they are not in a
pattern.
Kim discloses spacers 22 that are in a predetermined
pattern between the two substrates 10a and 10b of a matrix-
type liquid crystal display device (Figure 3 and column 2,
lines 56 through 68). The spacers 22 are sandwiched between
the black stripes 20 (or non-display regions) on one side of
the display and the thin-film transistors 14 on the other side
of the display. Kim never describes how the black stripes 20
and the spacers are "formed together" (column 4, lines 1
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
5
through 6) or how all of the structure is "combined to form a
liquid crystal display" (column 4, lines 22 through 30).
Based upon the teachings of Kim, the examiner concludes
(Answer, page 4) that "it would have been obvious to apply the
teaching of Kim to the teaching of admitted prior art (fig 13)
to make the spacer in a predetermined pattern since doing so
is not only just one of many ways to make the spacers between
two different layers in the LCD system, but also it is one of
the steps in making uniform thickness of a liquid crystal
display a possibility as specified by Kim."
For the advantage of improved contrast, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to locate the spacers/particulates 209 in the
admitted prior art (Figure 13) in a predetermined pattern in
the non-display/black stripe region as taught by Kim (column
2, lines 45 through 49 and column 4, lines 46 through 49).
Notwithstanding our agreement with the examiner,
appellants have correctly argued (Reply Brief, page 3) that:
Kim, since it is not addressed to a plasma addressed
LCD wherein an intermediate sheet spans across
barrier ribs in an underlying plasma chamber, does
not address this problem and as such, the spacers 22
are not adhesively attached to any intermediate
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
6
sheet. The spacers 22 are fixed in the black stripe
areas 20 but are not adhesively secured at an
opposite end as shown clearly in Figure 3 of Kim and
described at column 4, lines 22-30. Since there is
no intermediate sheet which can deflect downwardly
in the structure of Kim, there is no reason to make
the spacers 22 of Kim adhesive spacers and no reason
to particularly adhere the spacers at ends opposite
to the ends fixed to the black stripes 20.
Therefore, the spacers 22 of Kim are merely that,
"spacers," and do not act to adhesively secure the
LCD gap from deforming in a tension direction, i.e.,
pulling away from the spacer.
Thus, the claimed limitation of "the adhesive spacer is
adhered to the other side of the intermediate sheet" is
neither taught by nor would it have been suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art by the admitted prior art and Kim.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
15 and 17 is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERIC FRAHM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
8
HILL, STEADMAN & SIMPSON
85TH FLOOR SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606
Leticia
Appeal No. 96-2305
Application No. 08/149,627
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ BARRETT
APJ FRAHN
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): _____
Prepared: July 27, 2000
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT