14347542 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2018)

Ex Parte Hada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 4, 2018

14347542 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/347,542 03/26/2014 20277 7590 06/06/2018 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Makoto Hada 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 050070-0186 4241 EXAMINER GUPTA, PARUL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/06/2018 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): ipdocketmwe@mwe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAKOTO HADA and YUICHI TAKAHAHI Appeal2017-010522 Application 14/347,542 1 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to "a field sequential image display apparatus," such as a "vehicular head-up display." Spec. i-fi-1 1-2. Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-010522 Application 14/347,542 1. A field sequential image display apparatus, comprising: a micromirror device, having a plurality of micromirrors configured to be ON/OFF controlled; first light source, configured to emit light towards the micromirror device with a first color; second light source, configured to emit light towards the micromirror device with a second color; to: one or more controllers, configured to: drive the first and second light sources using a field sequential method for each of subframes into which a frame of a display image is time divided; and obtain display image data of the display image, and based on the display image data, control the incline of the . . micro mirrors, wherein the frame includes: a display period in which the one or more controllers cause a normal drive of the plurality of micromirrors, and drive the first and second light sources, thereby causing the micromirror device to display the display image; and a non-display period in which the one or more controllers cause a non-display period drive of the plurality of micromirrors, and tum off the first and second light sources, thereby not causing the micromirror device to display the display image, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the display period, and calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the non-display period, based on the calculation of the ON period and the OFF period of each micromirror in the display period, and wherein the non-display period drive is based on the calculation of the ON period and the OFF period of each micromirror in the non-display period. 2 Appeal2017-010522 Application 14/347,542 Rejections Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Huibers et al. (US 2007 /0241417 A 1; Oct. 18, 2007) and Shimada (US 2003/0132901 Al; July 17, 2003). Final Act. 2-9. Claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Huibers, Shimada, and Mizutani et al. (US 2002/0093480 Al; July 18, 2002). Final Act. 9-15. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Shimada teaches or suggests controllers configured to "calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the display period" and "calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the non-display period," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites a unit of time called a "frame" that includes (1) "a display period in which the one or more controllers cause a normal drive of the plurality of micromirrors" and (2) "a non-display period in which the one or more controllers cause a non-display period drive of the plurality of micromirrors." Claim 1 further recites controllers configured to (a) "calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the display period" and (b) "calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the non-display period." The Examiner explains that "Huibers et al. is used to teach the concept of micromirrors" and "Shimada is used to teach the timing." Ans. 2. Other than the concept of micromirrors, the Examiner maps Shimada's 3 Appeal2017-010522 Application 14/347,542 signal for "liquid crystal cells" to the claimed limitations of "a normal drive of the plurality of micromirrors" and "a non-display period drive of the plurality of micromirrors." See Final Act. 4---6. Appellants contend that in Shimada, "the liquid crystal cell is 'on' for the entirety of each even frame ... and 'off' for the entire[t]y of each odd frame." App. Br. 5 (citing Shimada Fig. 15). In contrast, Appellants argue that claim 1 recites controllers that "calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the display period" within a single frame and "calculate an ON period and an OFF period of each micromirror in the non- display period" within the same frame. Id. "That is, by express claim language, the 'display period' of the micromirrors includes both an ON and an OFF period and the 'non-display period' likewise includes both an ON and an OFF period." Id. The Examiner states, "The claims do not clarify the need for specific micromirror operation and merely recite a non-display period of the frame." Ans. 3. This fails to adequately address the claim language. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Shimada teaches or suggests "calculat[ing] an ON period and an OFF period of each [liquid crystal cell] in the display period" and "calculat[ing] an ON period and an OFF period of each [liquid crystal cell] in the non-display period." For example, the Final Action cites to Figure 8 of Shimada, yet that figure does not appear to depict Shimada's "black mode" ("BL") that the Examiner relies upon for the claimed "non-display period." See Final Act. 5. Thus, given the record before us, it is unclear what in Shimada teaches or suggests the claimed calculations for each period within a single frame. 4 Appeal2017-010522 Application 14/347,542 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-12. DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12. REVERSED 5