Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

13749903 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/749,903 01/25/2013 Bo-Hsuan LIN 32577U 9464
20529 7590 08/30/2017
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
HON, SOW FUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BO-HSUAN LIN and JUNG-PIN HSU
(Applicant: CHI MEI Corporation)1
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—
4 and 6—12. 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify CHI MEI Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed January 25, 2013
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated March 30, 2015 (“Final Act.”);
Advisory Action dated July 14, 2015 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief dated
November 30, 2015 (“App. Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal
Brief dated July 20, 2016 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a color liquid crystal display device
that includes a liquid crystal display element and a backlight unit. Abstract;
Spec. 1,3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.
10) (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded):
1. A color liquid crystal display device, comprising: a
liquid crystal display element including a color filter
having a blue filter segment, a green filter segment, and
a red filter segment, said green filter segment being
prepared from a green photosensitive resin composition
which includes a pigment combination, an alkali-soluble
resin, a compound having at least one ethylenically
unsaturated group, and a photoinitiator, said pigment
combination including a halogenated-phthalocyanine-
based green pigment component and a yellow pigment
component, a weight ratio of said halogenated-
phthalocyanine-based green pigment component to said
yellow pigment component ranging from 60/40 to 95/5;
and a backlight unit coupled to said liquid crystal
display element and having a color temperature ranging
from 8,090 K to 20,000 K,
wherein the halogenated-phthalocyanine-based
green pigment is selected from the group consisting of
C.I. Pigment Green 07, C.I. Pigment Green 37, C.I.
Pigment Green 42, C.I. Pigment Green 58, and
combinations thereof, and
wherein the photoinitiator includes an O-
acyloxime compound.
2
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Shimizu et ah, US 2001/0001207 A1 May 17, 2001
(hereinafter “Shimizu”)
Naruseetal., US 2009/0004578 A1 Jan. 1,2009
(hereinafter “Naruse”)
Jang et al., US 2011/0241044 A1 Oct. 6,2011
(hereinafter “Jang”)
The Rejection
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: claims 1—
4 and 6—12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Jang and Naruse. Ans. 2; Final Act. 3.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and
Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
Appellants argue claims 1^4 and 6—12 as a group. App. Br. 4. We
select independent claim 1 as representative and the remaining claims
subject to this rejection stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
The Examiner determines that the combination of Shimizu, Jang, and
Naruse suggests a color liquid crystal display device satisfying all of the
limitations of claim 1 and would have rendered claim 1 obvious. Ans. 2—5
(citing Shimizu H 137, 177, 203; Jang H 21, 46, 52, 63; Naruse H 4, 5, 7,
9, 16, 27, 275, 292, 294, p. 14 Table 1 (Example 16)).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because the rejection does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
App. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants argue that Shimizu, whether alone or in
combination, fails to teach or suggest a color filter having a blue filter
segment, a green filter segment, and a red filter segment, as recited in claim
1. Id. at 5. Appellants further argue that neither Naruse nor Jang teach or
suggest a color filter having a blue filter segment, a green filter segment, and
a red filter segment or otherwise cure the deficiency of Shimizu in this
regard. Id. at 7, 8.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection. On the record before us, we find that a
preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the
Examiner’s analysis and determination that the combination of Shimizu,
Jang, and Naruse suggests all of the limitations of claim 1, including the
claimed “color filter,” and would have rendered claim 1 obvious. Shimizu
11 137, 177, 203; Jang H 21, 46, 52, 63; Naruse H 4, 5, 7, 9, 16, 27, 275,
292, 294, p. 14 Table 1 (Example 16).
As the Examiner finds (Ans. 2, 6, 7) and contrary to what Appellants
argue, Shimizu does teach a color liquid crystal display device comprising a
liquid crystal display element including a color filter having a blue filter
segment, a green filter segment, and a red filter segment. Shimizu 1137
4
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
(disclosing “RGB components ... for a full-color liquid crystal display
device by using a color filter”). As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 6, 7)
and Appellants do not dispute, a “full-color liquid crystal display device,” as
disclosed in paragraph 137 of Shimizu, comprises a red pixel, a green pixel
and a blue pixel, which require a corresponding red filter segment (R), a
corresponding green filter segment (G) and a corresponding blue filter
segment (B), respectively, of the color filter.
The Examiner also provides a reasonable basis and identifies a
preponderance of the evidence in the record to evince why one of ordinary
skill would have combined the teachings of the cited references to arrive at
Appellants’ claimed invention. Ans. 3 (explaining that one of ordinary skill
would have had reason to have increased the color temperature of the
Shimizu’s backlight unit from 8,080K to a temperature within Jang’s range
of 8,090 K to 20,000 K in order to provide a wider range of color
reproducibility); Jang | 52. See also Ans. 4—5 (explaining that one of
ordinary skill would have had reason to incorporate Naruse’s green filter
segment/photosensitive resin composition with the color filter of Shimizu’s
liquid crystal display device in order to obtain the desired high-purity and
high-transmittance coloring, combined with the desired heat resistance and
excellent resolution in patterning); Naruse Tflf 5, 7, 16.
Appellants fail to direct us to sufficient evidence or provide an
adequate technical explanation to establish why the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention lacks a rational underpinning or is otherwise based on some other
reversible error. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
5
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
(2007) (explaining that any need or problem known in the art can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Narase and Jang references,
including that the references neither teach nor suggest a color filter having a
blue filter segment, a green filter segment, and a red filter segment (App. Br.
7, 8) are not persuasive because Appellants attack the references individually
rather than the collective teachings of the prior art as a whole. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants’ arguments are premised on what
Appellants contend the Narase and Jang references teach individually, and
not on the combined teachings of the cited references as a whole and what
the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Contrary to what Appellants’ arguments suggest, the Examiner does
not rely on Narase or Jang for disclosing the “color filter” element of claim
1. Rather, the Examiner relies on Shimizu (Ans. 8) as the primary reference
for teaching the use of a color filter having a blue filter segment, a green
filter segment, and a red filter segment. Shimizu 1137.
The Examiner relies (Ans. 3—4, 8—10) on Narase as a secondary
reference for disclosing the material composition of the claimed green filter
segment (Narase 9, 27, 275) and Jang as a secondary reference for
teaching a backlight unit coupled to the liquid crystal display element and
having a color temperature overlapping the claimed range of 8,090 K to
20,000 (Jang H 46, 52, 63).
6
Appeal 2016-008767
Application 13/749,903
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Shimizu,
Jang, and Naruse.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—12 is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7