Ex Parte ITO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

13555643 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/555,643 07/23/2012
97149 7590 07113/2016
Maschoff Brennan
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AkihikoITO
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.
S 1202.10202US02 3818
EXAMINER
PARK, SANGHYUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2016 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):
docket@mabr.com
info@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIHIKO ITO
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
This invention is directed to an electronic apparatus that enables
viewing a projected image in three dimensions. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. An electro-optical device comprising:
a light source that emits light; and
an electro-optical panel that modulates the light,
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
the electro-optical panel including:
a first gate line;
a second gate line that is adjacent to the first gate
line;
a data line that intersects the first gate line and the
second gate line;
a first pixel circuit that is disposed at position
corresponding to intersection between the first gate line
and the data line;
a second pixel circuit that is disposed at position
corresponding to intersection between the second gate line
and the data line; and
a driving circuit that drives the first pixel circuit and
the second pixel circuit such that the first pixel circuit and
the second pixel circuit modulate the light into a
modulated light,
wherein the first pixel circuit and the second pixel circuit
are supplied a first data signal for a right eye and modulate the
light into a first modulated light on the basis of the first data
signal in a first period,
wherein the second pixel circuit is supplied a second data
signal for the right eye and modulates the light into a second
modulated light on the basis of the second data signal, and the
first pixel circuit modulates the light into the first modulated
light, in a second period after the first period,
wherein the first pixel circuit and the second pixel circuit
are supplied a third data signal for a left eye and modulate the
light into a third modulated light on the basis of the third data
signal in a third period after the second period,
wherein the second pixel circuit is supplied a fourth data
signal for the left eye and modulates the light into a fourth
modulated light on the basis of the fourth data signal, and the first
pixel circuit modulates the light into a third modulated light, in a
fourth period after the third period, and
wherein the light source emits light during the entire first
period, second period, third period, and fourth period.
2
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsumura (US 2004/0041760 Al, publ. Mar. 4, 2004),
Shikama (US 5,982,538, iss. Nov. 9, 1999), and Ioki (US 2006/0170644 Al,
publ. Aug. 3, 2006). Final Action 7-14; Ans. 7-15.
The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsumura and Shikama. Final Action 2-7; Ans. 2-7.
ISSUES
Appellant presents several arguments on pages 13-1 7 of the Appeal
Brief directed to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8. The issues
presented by these arguments are as follows.
(a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tsumura,
Shikama, and Ioki teaches a "light source emits light during the entire first
period, second period, third period, and fourth period," as recited in
independent claim 1?
(b) Did the Examiner err in relying upon the combination of
Tsumura, Shikama, and Ioki because Tsumura teaches away from a "light
source [that] emits light during the entire first period, second period, third
period, and fourth period," as recited in independent claim 1?
( c) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tsumura and
Shikama teaches "a pair of glasses that transmits the light modulated by the
electro-optical panel ... wherein the pair of glasses includes a right eye
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, dated June 5, 2014
("Br."), the Examiner's Answer, mailed August 8, 2014 ("Ans."), and the
Final Office Action, mailed December 20, 2013 ("Final Action").
3
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
optical element and a left eye optical element, the right eye optical element
transmits the first modulated light and the second modulated light in the
second period, the left eye optical element transmits the third modulated
light and the fourth modulated light in the fourth period," as recited in
independent claim 8?
Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-7. See Br.
13-1 7. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8.
Issue (a)
Appellant argues Ioki merely teaches turning on a light source when a
user is within viewing range. Br. 14. Appellant further argues because Ioki
does not teach the processes performed during the four time periods as
recited in claim 1, "I oki cannot and does not teach a light source which emits
light during the entire first period, second period, third period, and fourth
period." Id.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive because it only
addresses Ioki for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relies upon the
combination of Tsumura and Shikama to show. The Examiner relies upon
the combination of Tsumura and Shikama for its teaching of the processes
4
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
performed during the four time periods as recited in claim 1, and upon Ioki
for its teaching of a light source that remains on during an entire display
time. Final Action 7-12; Ans. 7-12. Thus, Appellant's arguments directed
to Ioki's lack of teaching of the processes performed during the four claim
time periods, do not reveal error in the Examiner's findings regarding Ioki.
Additionally Appellant argues "[e]ssentially, the Examiner's
interpretation [of Ioki] is that a reference which teaches a light source which
emits light during any time period is equivalent to the four periods of time
cited in claim 1." Br. 14. We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds Ioki turns on a light source in order to display an
image. Final Action 11-12; Ans. 18-19. The Examiner further finds, absent
a teaching in Ioki that the light source is turned off, Ioki' s light source
remains on during the entire display period. See Ans. 18-19. We agree the
skilled artisan would recognize, as found by the Examiner, that a light
source can remain on during an entire display period. See id. Absent a
teaching otherwise, it is reasonable to interpret Ioki's light source as
remaining on. See id. This is further supported by Tsumura's teaching that
it is known that a light source may always be lit. See Tsumura i-f 4.
Issue (b)
Appellant argues Tsumura teaches away from a light source emitting
light during the four claimed writing periods because Tsumura teaches
examples in which the light source emits light after the writing period taught
in Shikama. See Br. 14--15. We do not find Appellant's argument
persuasive.
5
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
"The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from ... alternatives because such disclosure
does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed."
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the case before us, the Examiner finds Tsumura teaches an
improvement to Shikama's configuration. Ans. 19--20. Thus, rather than
criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging a light source emitting
light during a writing period, Tsumura teaches an alternative process in
which the light source may be switched on and off to provide an enhanced
quality picture. See Tsumura i-fi-f l, 4. Accordingly, we do not find
persuasive Appellant's argument that Tsumura teaches away from a light
source which emits light during the entire first period, second period, third
period, and fourth period.
Issue (c)
Claim 8 recites
a pair of glasses that transmits the light modulated by the electro-
optical panel ... wherein the pair of glasses includes a right eye
optical element and a left eye optical element, the right eye
optical element transmits the first modulated light and the second
modulated light in the second period, the left eye optical element
transmits the third modulated light and the fourth modulated light
in the fourth period.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Tsumura does not teach
the disputed limitation and because Shikama "fails to teach or suggest
transmitting the third and fourth modulated light in a fourth period, which is
the specific period of time during which the third pixel is supplied a supplied
6
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
(sic) a third data signal for the left eye while first pixel circuit modulates the
light which is still based on the third data signal." Br. 16.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive because Appellant
inappropriately addresses each of Tsumura and Shikama individually, where
the Examiner relies on the combination of Tsumura and Shikama. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Appellant's arguments do not substantively
address, and therefore reveal no error in, the Examiner's specific findings
regarding Tsumura and Shikama. See Br. 16; see also Ans. 18-23.
The Examiner finds the disputed limitation is taught by incorporating
Shikama's polarizing scheme utilizing a pair of polarized glasses into
Tsumura's LCD system, resulting in a stereoscopic image projection
apparatus with a first field being used for an image for a left eye and a
second field being used for an image for a right eye. Ans. 18. The
Examiner additionally provides a detailed explanation how the teachings of
Tsumura and Shikama may be combined to teach the disputed limitation.
Ans. 18-23. Appellant's arguments that each of Tsumura and Shikama
individually does not teach the limitations which the Examiner relied upon
the combination of Tsumura and Shikama to teach, do not persuade us of
Examiner error.
7
Appeal2015-000695
Application 13/555,643
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8