Ex Parte ITO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

14339286 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/339,286 07/23/2014
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 1202.10202US03 5010
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
Appeal2016-006190
Application 14/339,286
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 rejection
of claims 1-3. 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. Specification i-f 2. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below.
Appeal2016-006190
Application 14/339,286
1. An electro-optical device which displays a three dimensional image to a
viewer, the three-dimensional image including a right-eye image and a left-
eye image, the device comprising:
a plurality of scanning lines;
a plurality of data lines;
a plurality of pixel circuits that are disposed at positions
corresponding to intersections between the plurality of scanning lines
and the plurality of data lines;
a scanning signal supply unit which supplies a scanning signal to the
plurality of pixel circuits via the scanning lines; and
an image signal supply unit which supplies an image signal to the
plurality of pixel circuits via the data lines, the image signal
corresponding to either the right-eye image or the left-eye image at
right-eye image field intervals and left-eye image field intervals,
the electro-optical device being configured such that:
the left-eye image is supplied during a first field period and the right-
eye image is supplied during a second field period immediately
following the first field period, the first field period and the second
field period each having only two kinds of sub-fields including a first
sub-field period and a second sub-field period,
wherein during the first sub-field period, the scanning signal is
supplied simultaneously to each of the plurality of scanning lines, and
during the second sub-field period, the scanning signal is supplied to
only a subset of the plurality of scanning lines without supplying the
scanning signal to all of the scanning lines.
2
Appeal2016-006190
Application 14/339,286
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shikama et al. (US 5,982,538, Nov. 9, 1999) and Tsumura
et al. (US 2004/0041760 Al, Mar. 4, 2004). Final Action 2-5; Ans. 2-5.
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 1-3.
The disputed limitation of claim 1 recites "the left-eye image is
supplied during a first field period and the right-eye image is supplied during
a second field period immediately following the first field period, the first
field period and the second field period each having only two kinds of sub-
fields including a first sub-field period and a second sub-field period ... "2
Appellant contends claim 1 requires a frame to contain only two types
of sub-fields, where each of the two types of sub-fields is a writing period.
Br. 6-10. Based on this contention, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in
finding Tsumura teaches "the first field period and the second field period
each having only two kinds of sub-fields" because Tsumura requires at least
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 25,
2015 (Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed March 24, 2016 (Ans.), and the
Final Action mailed December 26, 2014 (Final Action).
2 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-3. Br. 6-12.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
3
Appeal2016-006190
Application 14/339,286
one sub-field of each frame to be a holding time, which is precluded by
claim 1. Br. 6-10.
Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. Claim 1 does not recite a frame and neither recites nor requires a
frame to contain only two types of sub-fields that are writing periods.
Moreover, Appellant's argument does not reveal error in the
Examiner's specific findings regarding Tsumura. The Examiner finds
Tsumura's first write data period and a second write data period respectively
teach the claimed first sub-field period and second sub-field period. Ans. 6.
The Examiner further finds row gate wiring (scan) voltages are supplied
during Tsumura's first and second write data periods. Id. The Examiner
additionally finds scan voltages are not supplied during Tsumura' s holding
time. Thus Tsumura's holding time is a time period separate from the first
and second write data periods and not a claimed kind of sub-field. Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, claim 1 does not require a frame to
contain only two time periods. See Ans. 7-8. The claim requires that when
the image data is supplied, there are only two sub-field periods per field
period, thus claim 1 does not preclude Tsumura's inclusion of a holding time
period within a frame, where the image data is not supplied. See id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appellant additionally argues Tsumura does not teach "a second field
period immediately following the first field period," as recited in claim 1,
because Tsumura teaches a holding time between the first and second field
periods. Br. 10-11.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because Appellant
only addresses Tsumura for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relies upon
4
Appeal2016-006190
Application 14/339,286
Shikama to show. See Ans. 8. The Examiner finds Shikama's
configuration, in which a right-eye time period immediately follows a left-
eye time period teaches "a second field period immediately following the
first field period," as claimed. Final Action 4; Ans. 8; see Shikama Fig. 8.
Appellant's argument against Tsumura does not reveal error in the
Examiner's finding regarding Shikama.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5