Ex Parte Conner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

12777551 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARLIE R. CONNER
____________

Appeal 2013-001687
Application 12/777,551
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before CHARLES F. WARREN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner has finally rejected claim 1 of Application 12/777,551
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated. Appellant seeks reversal of this
rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The ’551 Application describes an illumination system capable of
producing high-contrast projected images. Spec. 1.
Claim 1, the only claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
1. An illumination system for a projection display
comprising:
Appeal 2013-001687
Application 12/777,551
2
a two-dimensional array of independently operable light
elements centered on an optical axis; and
a first optical transfer system centered on the optical axis for
receiving light from the light elements and illuminating an
active area of a pixelated light modulator, the active area being
capable of displaying a projectable image, wherein light from at
least one light element illuminates the active area from a finite
number of directions, the finite number of directions being
rotationally symmetric about the optical axis, and wherein each
pixel in the active area is capable of being illuminated by each
light element, a contrast ratio of the projectable image being
controllable by adjusting an output intensity of one or more
light elements.
(App. Br. 7 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).)
REJECTION
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Matsui.1 FR 2.
DISCUSSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in
Appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief. We add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner rejected claim 1 of the ’551 Application as anticipated
by Matsui. FR 2. The Examiner found that Figure 1 of Matsui depicted an
illumination system in which light from at least one light element illuminates
the active area of a pixelated light modulator from a finite number of
directions. (App. Br. 3‒5.) The Examiner and Appellant agree that the light
element identified by the Examiner produces a cone of light that passes

1 US Patent No. 7,052,138 B2, issued May 30, 2006.
Appeal 2013-001687
Application 12/777,551
3
through 2 lenses (collectively, the “first optical transfer system” recited in
the claim) and then illuminates the active area of a pixelated light modulator.
As shown in Matsui, the light striking the light modulator continues to be in
the form of a cone.
The dispositive question in this appeal, therefore, is whether the
Examiner correctly found that the light depicted in Matsui is striking the
light modulator from a finite number of directions, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner interpreted the claim term “finite” as meaning “having
definite or definable limits.” (Ans. 5. (citing WEBSTER’S NINTH NEW
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY).) Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner
found that Matsui describes an illumination system which satisfies the
“finite number of directions” limitation.
Appellant argues that this finding is erroneous. Appellant argues that
the continuous distribution of light rays throughout the cone means that the
light striking the light modulator is coming from an infinite number of
directions. (App. Br. 3‒4.)
We agree with Appellant. Although limitations from the specification
are not to be read into the claims, in this instance, Appellant’s Specification
demonstrates that first optical transfer system emits light in a countable
number of directions. For example, in the embodiment shown in
Appellant’s Figure 7, first optical transfer system 720 receives a cone of
light emitted from light source 715B and emits the light in two directions,
shown by arrows 717 and 719. Spec. 13‒14 (“[O]ptical transfer system 720
redirects cone 703 so that all the cone rays exit the optical transfer system
along directions 717 and 719.”); see also id. at 14 (discussing first optical
transfer system’s emission of light in three directions).
Appeal 2013-001687
Application 12/777,551
4
In view of this description, the broadest reasonable construction of the
term “finite” is “completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting,
measurement, or thought.” (Ans. 5.) We note that this definition also is
consistent with the context in which the word is used (“a finite number”) in
claim 1. Our review of the ’551 Application’s Specification does not lead us
to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
the term “finite number” in the manner adopted by the Examiner.
In view of this definition, we agree with Appellant that Matsui shows
light coming from an infinite number of directions striking the light
modulator. If number of directions shown in Matsui actually is limited in
some manner, such limits likely would arise from a quantum-scale
interaction of photons travelling on nearly parallel paths. The Examiner,
however, has not identified or explained how or why such limits exist.
Thus, the Examiner has not established that Matsui anticipates claim 1 of the
’551 Application.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Matsui.
REVERSED

cdc