Ex Parte Purchase et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201412506915 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/506,915 07/21/2009 Ken G. Purchase 9409-46 4952 20792 7590 08/29/2014 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER GRAMLING, SEAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2014 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 KEN G. PURCHASE, WILLIAM R. LEFEW, ROBERT L. WOOD and ROBERT M. SOULE III ______________ Appeal 2012-006673 Application 12/506,915 Technology Center 2800 _______________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Applicants appeal to the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 2-19 and 25-33: under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), claims 2, 3, 5, 8-20, and 25-33 over Chen (US 2008/0089063 A1); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 4, 6, and 7 over Chen. Appeal Br. 4, 12; Ans. 4, 11. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner. Claim 13 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a diffuser that “is generally provided to diffuse the light that is emitted from [a] light source, so as to homogenize the light and reduce direct visibility of the light source to a viewer” and is used, for example, in an apparatus that has a plurality of light sources such as an LCD TV (Spec. ¶¶ 0003, 0020), and is representative of the claims on appeal: Appeal 2012-006673 Application 12/506,915 2 13. A diffuser that is configured to diffuse radiation from a plurality of light sources having a predetermined spacing therebetween, the diffuser comprising: a substrate having first and second opposing faces; and an array of microstructures on the first face, the microstructures in the array including at least one feature that varies as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources; wherein the array of microstructures comprises an array of repeating unit cells of microstructures, the microstructures in a respective repeating unit cell being defined by the at least one feature that varies as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources; and wherein the unit cells progressively change as a function of relative position on the substrate, in addition to varying as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources. Appeal Br. 15-16 (App’x A - Claims). OPINION Appellants argue the principal ground of rejection over Chen on independent claims 13, 15, 18, and 19, the dependent claims standing or falling with the independent claim. App. Br. 4. The issue with respect to each claim is whether the Examiner erred in finding as a matter of fact that Chen describes to one skilled in the art an embodiment of a diffuser that falls within the claim. See, e.g., Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In order to consider the rejection of the claims, we first give the terms in the limitations in each claim the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2012-006673 Application 12/506,915 3 2007); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We determine that claim 13 specifies a diffuser plate which comprises an array of “repeating unit cells of microstructures,” wherein (1) the microstructures “in a respective repeating unit cell” are defined by at least any one feature, such as shape, that varies as a function of the predetermined spacing of the light sources, and (2) each of “the unit cells progressively change as a function of relative position [of each unit cell] on the substrate” of the diffuser. Spec. ¶¶ 0028, 0030, Figs. 2A-2H, 2J. We note, in this respect, that while we do not find in the Specification a description of “unit cells [that] progressively change as a function of relative position [of each unit cell] on the substrate,” we find a description of a progressive change in the shapes of microstructures in a periodic lattice of microstructures in a unit cell. Spec. ¶ 0030, Fig. 2J. See Appeal Br. 5-7 (citing Spec. Figs. 2I, 2J). Thus, we are of the view that not only must the microstructures in a unit cell vary in at least one feature based on the predetermined spacing of the light sources, but must further vary based on the location of the unit cell on the substrate of the diffuser. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Chen describes an embodiment falling within claim 13. While the Examiner correctly finds that Chen describes embodiments wherein the shapes of microstructures 531 (cambered) and 551 (prism lens) vary based on the predetermined spacing of the light sources within the respective light-scattering areas 530 and light-gathering areas 550, which are designated “unit cells” by the Examiner, the Examiner has not established that any of the “unit cells” 530, 550 progressively change as a function of the position of the unit cell on the substrate of the diffuser, as Appellants Appeal 2012-006673 Application 12/506,915 4 contend. Ans. 4-5, 13-14 (citing Chen ¶¶ 0027-0038, Figs. 4, 7-9); Appeal Br. 5-7 (citing Chen ¶ 0037, Fig. 9); Reply Br. 4 (citing Chen ¶ 0037, Figs. 4, 9). On this record, we reverse the ground of rejection of claims 13, 14, and 25-27 over Chen. Independent claim 15 specifies, in pertinent part, a diffuser “wherein the array of microstructures comprises a plurality of first and second microstructures that are interspersed among one another on the first face and wherein the at least one feature varies a relative proportion of first and second microstructures that are interspersed among one another as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources.” Appeal Br. 16 (App’x A - Claims). We determine that the plain language of claim 15 requires that the relative proportions of interspersed first microstructures and second microstructures vary as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources. Spec. ¶ 0030, Fig. 3. See Ans. 15; Appeal Br. 7-8 (citing Spec. Fig. 3). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Chen describes an embodiment falling within claim 15. Ans. 6, 15-16 (citing Chen ¶¶ 0027-0038, Figs. 4-9); Appeal Br. 8-9 (citing Chen ¶ 0030, Figs. 4-9); Reply Br. 4 (citing Chen Fig. 4). We find that, as Appellants point out, Chen does not describe to one skilled in the art an embodiment in which the relative proportion of 6 microstructures 531 (cambered) to 10 microstructures 551 (prism lens) within the respective light-scattering areas 530 and light-gathering areas 550 interposed among one another on the substrate of the diffuser, varies as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources, as the Examiner contends. Chen ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0030-0034, 0039, Figs. 4, 9. Appeal 2012-006673 Application 12/506,915 5 On this record, we reverse the ground of rejection of claims 15 and 28-30 over Chen. Independent claim 18 specifies, in pertinent part, a diffuser “wherein at least one feature of the microstructures in the array also varies as a function of a position of a microstructure relative to an edge of the substrate, in addition to varying as a function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources.” Appeal Br. 17 (App’x A - Claims). We determine that the plain language of claim 18 requires that at least one feature of the microstructures, such as size, varies as function a position of the microstructure relative to the edge of the substrate of a diffuser. Spec. ¶ 0040, Fig. 6. See Appeal Br. 9-10 (citing Spec. Fig. 6). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Chen describes an embodiment falling within claim 18. Ans. 7-8, 16-17 (citing Chen ¶¶ 0027-0038, Figs. 4-9); Appeal Br. 9-11 (citing Chen ¶ 0035, Fig. 8); Reply Br. 6 (citing Chen Figs. 4, 8). We find that, as Appellants point out and contrary to the Examiner’s position, Chen’s Figures 4 and 8 describe that the size and shape of the microstructures 551 (prism lens) in light-gathering areas 550 are consistent as this array alternates with the microstructures 531 (cambered) in light-scattering areas 530 beginning at the edge and containing across the substrate of the diffuser. Chen ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0030-0034, 0036, 0037, Figs. 4, 8, 9. On this record, we reverse the ground of rejection of claims 18 and 31-33 over Chen. Independent claim 19 specifies, in pertinent part, a diffuser “wherein at least one feature of the microstructures in the array also varies randomly or psuedorandomly independent of the predetermined spacing between spacing between the plurality of light sources, in addition to varying as a Appeal 2012-006673 Application 12/506,915 6 function of the predetermined spacing between the plurality of light sources.” Appeal Br. 17 (App’x A - Claims). We determine that, as Appellants submit and contrary to the Examiner’s position, the claim term “pseudorandom” is used in context with its ordinary dictionary meaning “[o]f, relating to, or being random numbers generated by a definite, nonrandom computational process.” See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1414 (4th ed. 2000). Ans. 18; Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Chen describes an embodiment falling within claim 19. Ans. 8-9, 17-18 (citing Chen ¶¶ 0027-0038, Figs. 4-9); Appeal Br. 11-12 (citing Chen ¶ 0035, Fig. 8); Reply Br. 5 (citing Chen Fig. 8). We find that, as Appellants point out and contrary to the Examiner’s position, Chen’s Figures 4 and 8 describe that the variation in the shape and size of microstructures 531 (cambered) and 551 (prism lens) based on the predetermined spacing of the light sources within the respective light-scattering areas 530 and light-gathering areas 550 is consistent across the substrate of the diffuser and thus is neither random nor pseudorandom. Chen ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0036, Figs. 8. On this record, we reverse the grounds of rejection of claims 2-12, 16, and 19 over Chen. The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation