Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 205809445) in view of Midori et al. (WO 2012/128239).
Regarding claim 1, Sun et al. (figures 4A-4B) discloses a polarizing plate comprising: a polarizer (1 or 2); and the polarizing plate has a light transmittance ratio of 0.008 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 1: Light transmittance ratio=Tc(380 nm to 420 nm)/Tc(780 nm), where Tc (780 nm) denotes a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 780 nm (unit: %), and Tc (380 nm to 420 nm) denotes a maximum value of a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm (unit: %) (Sun et al. discloses that 400-700 nm light wavelength range the human eye is sensitive, the transmittance is less than 0.5%; therefore Tc(380 nm to 420 nm)/Tc(780 nm) = 0.5/100 = 0.005; hence light transmittance ratio < 0.005; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the polarizing plate has a light transmittance ratio of 0.008 or less and the haze values.
Sun et al. (figures 4A-4B) discloses the polarizing plate has a light transmittance ratio of 0.008 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 1: Light transmittance ratio=Tc(380 nm to 420 nm)/Tc(780 nm), where Tc (780 nm) denotes a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 780 nm (unit: %), and Tc (380 nm to 420 nm) denotes a maximum value of a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm (unit: %) (Sun et al. discloses that 400-700 nm light wavelength range the human eye is sensitive, the transmittance is less than 0.5%; therefore Tc(380 nm to 420 nm)/Tc(780 nm) = 0.1/13 = 0.0077; hence light transmittance ratio < 0.005; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate as taught by Sun et al. in order to achieve a polarizing plate having a simple structure and reduce manufacturing costs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmittance ratio of 0.008 or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In addition, Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches a first protective film stacked on a surface of the polarizer, wherein the first protective film has a total haze of 40% to 60% and an internal haze of 3% to 7% (9a or 11a; the total haze value of one film is in the range of 20 to 80% and the internal haze value is preferably in the range of 0.25 to 30%; see at least page 5, 3rd to 8th paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protective film as taught by Midori et al. in order to suppress moire fringes and prevent reduction in front luminance.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first protective film has an external haze-to-internal haze ratio of 9 to 20. Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches wherein the first protective film has an external haze-to-internal haze ratio of 9 to 20 (9a or 11a; the total haze value of one film is in the range of 20 to 80% and the internal haze value is preferably in the range of 0.25 to 30%; see at least page 5, 3rd to 8th paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protective film as taught by Midori et al. in order to suppress moire fringes and prevent reduction in front luminance.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polarizing plate has a light transmittance ratio of 0.003 to 0.008, as calculated according to Equation 1. Sun et al. (figures 4A-4B) discloses wherein the polarizing plate has a light transmittance ratio of 0.003 to 0.008, as calculated according to Equation 1 (Sun et al. discloses that 400-700 nm light wavelength range the human eye is sensitive, the transmittance is less than 0.5%; therefore Tc(380 nm to 420 nm)/Tc(780 nm) = 0.5/100 = 0.005; hence light transmittance ratio < 0.005; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate as taught by Sun et al. in order to achieve a polarizing plate having a simple structure and reduce manufacturing costs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmittance ratio of 0.003 to 0.008, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 6, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 0% to 20% at a wavelength of 780 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have crossed transmittance of 0% to 20% at a wavelength of 780 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 0% to 20% at a wavelength of 780 nm” above, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 0% to 20% at a wavelength of 780 nm” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sun et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sun et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 7, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm is present at a wavelength of 395 nm to 410 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm being present at a wavelength of 395 nm to 410 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding limitations “wherein the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm is present at a wavelength of 395 nm to 410 nm” above, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm is present at a wavelength of 395 nm to 410 nm” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sun et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sun et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 8, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm is 0.001% to 0.1%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm being 0.001% to 0.1%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding limitations “wherein the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm is 0.001% to 0.1%” above, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm is 0.001% to 0.1%” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sun et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sun et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 9, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polarizing plate has a Tc-to-total haze ratio of 0.35 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 2: Tc-to-total haze ratio=Tc(780 nm)/total haze, where the total haze is a total haze of the first protective film (unit: %), and Tc (780 nm) denotes a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 780 nm (unit: %). Sun et al. (figures 4A-4B) discloses Tc (780 nm) = 13% and Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches a total haze is in the range of 20 to 80% (1see at least page 5, 3rd to 8th paragraphs), therefore Sun et al. as modified by Midori et al. teaches Tc-to-total haze ratio of 0.35 or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm being 0.001% to 0.1%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a Tc-to-total haze ratio of 0.35 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 2: Tc-to-total haze ratio=Tc(780 nm)/total haze” above, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a Tc-to-total haze ratio of 0.35 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 2: Tc-to-total haze ratio=Tc(780 nm)/total haze” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sun et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sun et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 10, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polarizing plate has a Tc-to-internal haze ratio of 5.0 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 3: Tc-to-internal haze ratio=Tc(780 nm)/internal haze, where the internal haze is an internal haze of the first protective film (unit: %), and Tc (780 nm) denotes a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 780 nm (unit: %). Sun et al. (figures 4A-4B) discloses Tc (780 nm) = 13% and Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches the internal haze value is preferably in the range of 0.25 to 30% (1see at least page 5, 3rd to 8th paragraphs), therefore Sun et al. as modified by Midori et al. teaches Tc-to-internal haze ratio of 5.0 or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm being 0.001% to 0.1%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a Tc-to-internal haze ratio of 5.0 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 3: Tc-to-internal haze ratio=Tc(780 nm)/internal haze, where the internal haze is an internal haze of the first protective film (unit: %), and Tc (780 nm) denotes a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 780 nm (unit: %)” above, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a Tc-to-internal haze ratio of 5.0 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 3: Tc-to-internal haze ratio=Tc(780 nm)/internal haze, where the internal haze is an internal haze of the first protective film (unit: %), and Tc (780 nm) denotes a crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 780 nm (unit: %)” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sun et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sun et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 11, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 1.0% to 1.3% in a machine direction of the polarizer and a crossed transmittance of 0.05% or less in a transverse direction of the polarizer at a wavelength of 380 nm. Sun et al. (figures 4A-4B) discloses wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 1.0% to 1.3% in a machine direction of the polarizer and a crossed transmittance of 0.05% or less in a transverse direction of the polarizer at a wavelength of 380 nm (along the transmission axis and the absorption axis; figure 4b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum value of the crossed transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 380 nm to 420 nm being 0.001% to 0.1%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 1.0% to 1.3% in a machine direction of the polarizer and a crossed transmittance of 0.05% or less in a transverse direction of the polarizer at a wavelength of 380 nm” above, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the polarizing plate has a crossed transmittance of 1.0% to 1.3% in a machine direction of the polarizer and a crossed transmittance of 0.05% or less in a transverse direction of the polarizer at a wavelength of 380 nm” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sun et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sun et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 13, Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches wherein the first protective film is stacked alone on the surface of the polarizer (9a, 10a, 11a).
Regarding claim 14, Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches a second protective film stacked on another surface of the polarizer (9a, 10a, 11a).
Regarding claim 15, Midori et al. (figures 1-2A) teaches an optical display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Midori et al.; further in view of Choi (US 2005/0253977).
Regarding claim 3, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first protective film further comprises an antireflection layer stacked on a surface of the antiglare layer. Choi (figure 3) teaches wherein the first protective film further comprises an antireflection layer stacked on a surface of the antiglare layer (16; see at least paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate as taught by Choi in order to prevent degradation of image quality of the device caused by high static electricity.
Regarding claim 4, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the antiglare layer comprises at least one selected from among organic particles and inorganic particles. Choi (figure 3) teaches wherein the antiglare layer comprises at least one selected from among organic particles and inorganic particles (16, 23; see at least paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate as taught by Choi in order to prevent degradation of image quality of the device caused by high static electricity.
Regarding claim 12, Sun et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first protective film further comprises an antireflection layer stacked on a surface of the antiglare layer. Choi (figure 3) teaches wherein the first protective film further comprises an antireflection layer stacked on a surface of the antiglare layer (16; see at least paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate as taught by Choi in order to prevent degradation of image quality of the device caused by high static electricity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871