COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
INOPERABLE; Dot Pattern For Cathode Ray Tubes
In order to form the desired color dot on a television tube face, the
light source must rotate eccentrically with respect to the tube centre
line. Claims which fail to specify this necessary requirement were
refused.
Final Action: Affirmed
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated October 24, 1975, on applica-
tion 114,647 (Class 95-36). The application was filed on June 2, 1971,
in the name of Constant J.M. Geenen et al, and is entitled "Method And
Apparatus For Producing Cathode Ray Tube Dot Patterns."
This invention relates to cathode-ray tubes used in color television, and
more particularly to the manner in which color dots are formed on the
screen. The screen comprises a mosaic of circular phosphor dots adapted
to emit light of different colors when excited by an impinging electron
beam. An optical projection of a pattern of circular apertures on a
photosensitive layer is used to produce the phosphor dots. Figure 1 (below)
illustrates the apparatus to make the dots.
<IMG>
In the Final Action the examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 as being
inoperable. The examiner stated (in part):
Allowance of claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 is refused because said claims
are inoperable. Also page 12 lines 8 and 21 to 25 and page 15
line 16 must be amended to remove references to concentric rota-
tion which is an inoperable combination.
The object of the disclosure invention as stated on page 10
lines 15 to 20 and original page 12 lines 1 to 5 is to provide
a method and a device with which both a rotationally symmetric
macrospopic light distribution and a microscopic light dis-
tribution having a great light intensity gradient in the penumbral
region are obtained.
In order to achieve this object of a large light intensity gradient
across the penunbral region of each exposed dot the light source
must rotate eccentrically with respect to an axis which is sub-
stantially perpendicular with respect to the centre of the support.
The following disclosed references recite this feature: page 12
lines 25 to 29, page is lines 7 to 11, page 14 lines 21 to 27 and
page 15 lines 1 to 8. Moreover all figures of structure show
the light source as being eccentric with respect to the axis
perpendicular to the support. It is therefore held that eccentric
rotation of the light source is an essential feature of operable
method and apparatus claims.
If applicant is relying on page 12, line 8 and 21 to 25 and page 15,
line 16 which either infer or recite on-axis rotation which pro-
duces the macroscopic effect of a relatively large circular
light source, it is respectfully submitted that the description
on page 12 is insufficient to be operable. Both the word "about"
on page 12, line 8 and the sentence on page 12 lines 21 to 25
are too broad in order to be operable to achieve the object defined above.
Also the words "which intersects" on page 15, line 16 are
inaccurate to achieve said object. It is held that on-axis rotation
of an elongate light source will not produce an annular light source
but will merely produce a uniform circular light source which will
not achieve a large intensity gradient across the penumbral region
of each dot exposure. In other words the small changing directivity
achieved by using the eccentric rotation of the light source is
essential to effect a large intensity gradient across the penumbral
region during the total exposure of each dot; page 12 lines 27 to 29 and
page 10 lines 3 to 6 and 15 to 20 further support such a stand.
Pages 12 and 15 of the disclosure therefore must be amended.
Claims 1 and 4 and dependent claims 5 and 6 include rotation of a
light source located either on-axis or off-axis and are therefore
so broad as to include the inoperable embodiment of a mere uniform
circular light source rather than the operable embodiment
of an annular light source produced by an eccentric rotation of
the light. Moreover, claim 1 appears to rely on Figures 3 and 4
which show only eccentric rotation. Likewise, claim 4 and
dependent claims 5 and 6 appear to rely on the embodiment of
Figure 5 which also shows only eccentric rotation. Claims 1 and 4
and dependent claims 5 and 6 are refused as being inoperable.
Applicant's response of August 28, 1975 which states on page 2,
paragraph 2 that the most important object of the invention is to
obtain rotation symmetrical light spots behind each aperture of
the shadow mask, is insufficient. In spite of the fact that the
last two examiner's reports stated that eccentric rotation was
held to be an essential feature of operable claims, applicant's
responses to these reports neither amended the claims to include
this feature nor offered any argument refuting the examiner's
position that this feature is essential to operable claims.
Claims 1 and 4 and dependent claims 5 and 6 are refused as being
inoperable for not including the essential feature of eccentric
rotation. An acceptable amendment would be to add a word such as
"eccentric" before "rotation" (first occurrence) in claim 1
line 8 and a word such as "eccentrically" before "rotating" in
claim 4 line 7.
In his response to the Final Action dated January 15, 1976, the applicant
stated (in part):
Stated as the objects of the invention at page 5 of the disclosure
is the achievement of rotation-symmetrical macroscopical and microscopical
light distributions. According to the invention, also stated on
page 5, the light source or "lamp rotates about an axis which is sub-
stantially perpendicular to the support". It is further stated that
if "the longitudinal axis of the light source (considering an elongated
source) and the axis of rotation intersect each other, a circular
light source is effectively realized in this manner". It is submitted
that it is obvious that, especially in the case of an elongated light
source which cannot be considered punctiform, there will be both
macroscopical and microscopical light distributions regardless of
whether or not the physical center of the elongated light is at the axis
of rotation. That the applicant did envisage concentric rotation of
the light source becomes obvious when the text of the disclosure beginning
at line 25 of page twelve is read where it states if the axis of the
light source and the axis of rotation do not intersect an annular
light source can be realized. It is submitted that whenever the highest
concentration of light impinges on the screen at a point not coincident
with the center of the screen a substantially annular light source
is realized.
It is also evidence that no light source is perfect and a truly
punctiform light source is not attainable, hence, only by coincidence
will the maximum light concentration area on the radiated screen coin-
cide with the axis of rotation.
It should now be clearly evidence that the applicant did consider
concentric as well as eccentric rotation of the light source and even
though the drawings are directed to eccentric rotation, which is the
most difficult situation to understand, concentric rotation was also
under consideration as evidenced by the disclosure referred to above
as well as that mentioned by the examiner at pages 12 and 15.
The examiner is believed incorrect in asking for a restriction
of the applicants' disclosure from what vas originally disclosed
since there is no authority for such a request. It is believed
that the disclosure provides the description outlining the scope
of the invention and only the claims can be restricted to cover
no more than the inventor has disclosed, but not less - unless there
is restrictive prior art.
Page 11, line 27 states the invention obviates the drawbacks of
the prior art and these are
(a) a conical element requires an unduly long exposure time;
(b) an annular or non-annular light source of large diameter
cannot be realized by means of a conical element.
Concentric rotation of a light source obviates the first drawback
(a) while eccentric rotation solves the second problem. By
following the instructions of the disclosure it is possible to
achieve either or both types of rotational symmetry.
The question that the Board must consider is whether claims 1, 4, 5 and 6
.are inoperative to give the desired result contemplated in the disclosure.
Claim 1 of the application reads:
A method for projecting light through a pattern of substantially
circular apertures onto a photosensitive layer present on a support,
said method comprising: locating a light source facing said pattern
of apertures at the side remote from said photosensitive layer,
directing an axis of greatest light intensity of said light source
substantially to the centre of said photosensitive layer, and
imposing a continuous rotation on said light source, said rotation
having an axis of rotation which is substantially perpendicular to
the centre of said photosensitive layer.
Since some of the claims are rejected as inoperable because they fail to
produce the promised result, our initial consideration will be an assessment of
the objectives of the invention as set out in the disclosure. In outlining
these objectives, found in pages 2 to 17 (inclusive), the applicant has
not clearly established the manner in which he proposes to solve the prior
art problems. This was mentioned in the examiner's report of June 17, 1975,
which stated that "the disclosure contains no clear object of invention." In
response to this report the applicant replied that "the most important object
of the present invention is, however, to obtain rotational-symmetrical light
spots behind each aperture of the shadow mask, the microscopical light
distributions."
Again in the Final Action the examiner reiterated his stand at paragraph 6,
which reads:
The object of the disclosure [sic] invention as stated on page 10
lines 15 to 20 and original page 12 lines 1 to 5 is to provide
a method and a device with which both a rotationally symmetric
macroscopic light distribution and a microscopic light dis-
tribution having a great light intensity gradient in the penumbral
region are obtained.
In order to achieve this object of a large light intensity gradient
across the penumbral region of each exposed dot the light source
must rotate eccentrically with respect to an axis which is sub-
stantially perpendicular with respect to the centre of the support.
In answer to this argument, the applicant's response to the Final Action
was that "the objects of the invention [as stated] at page 5 of the disclosure
is the achievement of rotational-symmetrical macroscopical and microscopical
light distributions." The drawings only show an eccentric light arrangement
and the detailed description appearing on pages 18 to 23 indicates how the
applicant attains his desired result. Therefore, we conclude that the basic
object of the invention is to achieve a light distribution that has a large light
intensity gradient in the penumbral region of each dot exposed through each
aperture of the mask by using an eccentric rotation of the light source.
In his argument in response to the Final Action the applicant stresses
that he did envisage concentric rotation of the light source, and that "whenever
the highest concentration of light impinges on the screen at a point not
coincident with the centre of the screen a substantially annular light source
is realized." We agree with the applicant on these points. However, concentric
rotation does not produce the desired result, i.e. a large light intensity
gradient in the penumbral region of each dot of exposure. This result will
only be produced by eccentric rotation, which is the only embodiment shown in
the drawings and the detailed description found in pages 18 to 23 of the
disclosure. The statements of the objects of the invention (pages 2 to 17)
do not indicate any other arrangement which will achieve the promised result.
In the last paragraph on page 2 of his response to the Final Action the
applicant states:
Page 11, line 27 states the invention obviates the drawbacks of the
prior art and these are:
(a) a conical element requires an unduly long exposed time;
(b) An annular or non-annular light source of large diameter cannot
be realized by means of a conical element,
Concentric rotation of a light source obviates the first drawback (a)
while eccentric rotation solves the second problem. (emphasis added)
This indicates there is agreement between the applicant and the stand taken
by the examiner, since problem b is solved by eccentric rotation. Claims 2 and
3 which include the eccentric arrangement have been indicated allowable by
the examiner.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected as they may have rotation of the light source
Either on-axis or off-axis, and this includes the undesirable embodiment of
a uniform circular light source rather than the operable embodiment of a light
source using eccentric light rotation. In De Forest Phonofilm v Famous Players
1931 Ex. C.R. 27 @43 Maclean J states:
The specification must "clearly and fully describe the
invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the
inventor" and it must "set forth clearly the various steps
in ... the method of constructing the machine, manufacture,
etc." This was an obligation of the Common Law and it is now
an obligation by Statute. If the specification uses language
which when fairly read, is avoidably obscure or ambiguous,
the patent is void, whether the defect be due to design, or
to careless ness, or to want of skill; nothing can excuse the
use of ambiguous language when simple language may easily be
employed, due allowance of course, being made where the invention
is difficult to explain and there is a resulting difficulty in
the language. If the terms of a specification are so ambiguous
that its proper construction must always remain a matter of
doubt, it is the duty of the Court to declare the patent void.
We note that the examiner has indicated that independent claims 1 and 4 would
be made acceptable by the insertion of the eccentric feature, and we agree
this would make them allowable.
The Board recommends that the decision taken in the Final Action to
refuse claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 be affirmed.
G.A. Asher
Chairman
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the finding of the Patent Appal Board. Accordingly, I
refuse to allow claims 1, 4, 5 and 6. The applicant has six months within
which to appeal this decision under the provisions of Section 44 of the
Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 20th. day of October, 1976
Agent for Applicant
C.E. Van Steinburg
116 Vanderhoof Ave.
Toronto, Ontario