Ex Parte Yamamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

13387863 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/387,863 01/30/2012
25191 7590 09/06/2016
BURR & BROWN, PLLC
POBOX7068
SYRACUSE, NY 13261-7068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroshi Yamamoto
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
920_298 5553
EXAMINER
CROCKETT,RYANM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI YAMAMOTO, HIROSHI SEKIGUCHI,
MASAHIRO GOTO, and KEIJI KASHIMA
Appeal2015-001984
Application 13/387,863
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 3-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a light guide plate. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A light guide plate comprising:
a light exit surface;
a back surface opposed to the light exit surface;
a light entrance surface consisting of at least part of a
side surface between the light exit surface and the back surface;
said light guide plate further comprising:
Appeal2015-001984
Application 13/387,863
a body portion; and
a light exit-side layer disposed on a side of the light exit
surface side relative to the body portion and formed by curing
of an ionizing radiation curable resin;
wherein the light exit-side layer includes an optical
element portion which defines the light exit surface and which
has a plurality of unit shaped elements arranged in one
direction, the one direction intersecting a direction connecting
the light entrance surface and a surface which consists of
another part of the side surface and which is opposed to the
light entrance surface, each unit shaped element extending
linearly in a direction intersecting the one direction;
wherein a ratio (L/T) of a length L of the light guide
plate, from the light entrance surface to the surface consisting
of another part of the side surface and opposed to the light
entrance surface, relative to an average thickness T of the light
guide plate along a normal direction of a plate plane of the light
guide plate, is not more than 500; and
wherein a ratio ( t2/t 1) of an average thickness t2 of the
light exit-side layer along the normal direction of the plate
plane of the light guide plate to an average thickness tl of the
body portion along the normal direction of the plate plane of the
light guide plate, is not more than 0.1.
Katsu
Yeo
Kinder
Chang
Suzuki
The References
US 2002/0015300 Al
US 7,278,775 B2
US 2008/0232135 Al
US 2009/0213576 Al
JP 07-120605 A
The Rejections
Feb. 7,2002
Oct. 9, 2007
Sep.25,2008
Aug.27,2009
May 12, 1995
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
3, 4, and 7 over Suzuki in view of Katsu, claims 5, 8, and 9 over Suzuki in
2
Appeal2015-001984
Application 13/387,863
view of Katsu and Yeo, claim 6 over Suzuki in view of Katsu and Kinder
and claim 10 over Suzuki in view of Katsu, Yeo and Chang.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim 1. 1 That claim requires that "a ratio (L/T) of a length L of
the light guide plate, from the light entrance surface to the surface consisting
of another part of the side surface and opposed to the light entrance surface,
relative to an average thickness T of the light guide plate along a normal
direction of a plate plane of the light guide plate, is not more than 500".
Suzuki discloses a light guide plate comprising a transparent resin
board (1) having thereon a thin layer (26) which has prisms (20) on its
surface opposite the transparent resin board (1) and has a low refractive
index relative to the transparent resin board ( 1) such that light from a
fluorescent tube (8) at a side of the transparent resin board ( 1) totally reflects
from the transparent resin board ( 1)' s observation side surface ( 5) to its rear
face (2) without reaching the prism plane (i-fi-f 16, 23; Drawing 1 ).
Katsu discloses a light guide plate (22) with a light emitting
surface (26) having a plurality of convexoconcave portions (27) wherein the
convex and concave portions can have flat faces (31-35) (i-fi-f 35, 36, 43--45;
Figs. 2, 3). "[T]he occupation area of the flat face to light emitting
surface 26 is set to about 50%, the ratio is not limited to the same. This is
because the brightness distribution state on the light emitting surface 26 may
vary according to various conditions of the back light 10 composition,
1 The Examiner does not rely upon Yeo, Kinder or Chang for any disclosure
that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent
claim (Final Act. 8-10).
3
Appeal2015-001984
Application 13/387,863
including length and width ratio and thickness of the light guide plate 22,
effective length of the cold cathode tube 18 in respect to the light guide
plate 22 or others" (i-f 46).
The Examiner asserts that "Applicant has not disclosed that the range
[L/T not more than 500] is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an
unexpected, significant result, or is otherwise critical" (Final Act. 6).
The Appellants disclose that the combination of recited L/T and t2/t 1
ratios prevents yellowing of light exiting the light guide plate (Spec. i170).
The Examiner asserts that "Katsu recognizes ratios of length, width
and thickness of the LGP [light guide plate] as result-effective variables for
achieving a desired brightness distribution of light emitted from the LGP. In
view of the teachings of Katsu, one of skill in the art at the time of invention
would have been led to the claimed ratio (L/T) of not more than 500 through
routine experimentation and optimization" (Final Act. 6).
The Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which indicates
that the L/T ratio which optimizes a light guide plate's brightness
distribution is less than 500. The Examiner's mere speculation to that effect
is insufficient for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section
103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted
without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art").
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 over
Suzuki in view of Katsu, claims 5, 8, and 9 over Suzuki in view of Katsu and
4
Appeal2015-001984
Application 13/387,863
Yeo, claim 6 over Suzuki in view of Katsu and Kinder, and claim 10 over
Suzuki in view of Katsu, Yeo and Chang are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5