Ex Parte Page et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201714033273 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/033,273 09/20/2013 David L. Page 3DIP00501 1023 42671 7590 12/28/2017 LAW OFFICES OF MARK L. BERRIER 1715 S. Capital of Texas Hwy. Suite 200-E Suite 200-E AUSTIN, TX 78746 EXAMINER VOLENTINE, REBECCA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID L. PAGE and CLARENCE E. THOMAS JR. Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,2731 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—9 and 15—25, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 10-14 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Third Dimension IP LLC (App. Br. 4). Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellants, the claims are directed a 3D display system having a display screen which converges projected images to form viewpoints for a viewer (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a plurality of 2D image projectors; and a display screen optically coupled to the 2D image projectors; wherein the 2D image projectors are configured to project individual 2D images substantially in focus on the display screen; wherein the display screen is configured to optically converge each projected 2D image from the corresponding 2D image projector to a corresponding, different viewpoint, wherein rays of the optically converged 2D image are diffused to a greater extent vertically than horizontally so that the viewpoint has a greater extent vertically than horizontally, wherein the ensemble of the viewpoints form an eyebox; wherein a viewer within the eyebox observing the display screen sees a different converged image with each eye, wherein each eye sees an entire one of the 2D images, wherein the converged image seen by each eye varies as the viewer moves his or her head horizontally. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brentnall US 2010/0014053 A1 Jan. 21,2010 Thomas US 2010/0214537 A1 Aug. 26,2010 2 Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 REJECTION Claims 1—9 and 15—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Brentnall (Final Act. 4—14). Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1). ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—9 and 15—25 Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1—9 and 15—25, is patentable over Thomas and Brentnall (App. Br. 12—15). The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1: Has the Examiner shown Thomas teaches or suggests “optically converging] each projected 2D image from the corresponding 2D image projector to a corresponding, different viewpoint. . . wherein each eye sees an entire one of the 2D images,” as recited in claim 1 ? Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Thomas and Brentnall teaches or suggests “rays of the optically converged 2D image are diffused to a greater extent vertically than horizontally so that the viewpoint has a greater extent vertically than horizontally,” as recited in claim 1? Issue 3: Has the Examiner improperly combined Thomas and Brentnall? ANALYSIS Issue 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Thomas teaches “optically converging] each projected 2D image from the corresponding 2D image projector to a corresponding, different viewpoint. . . wherein each 3 Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 eye sees an entire one of the 2D images,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4—10). Specifically, Appellants argue “Thomas teaches that 2D images are converged to a display screen” rather than teaching the images are “converged from the display screen to corresponding viewpoints'1'’ (App. Br. 13). Appellants further argue “in Thomas, the [viewer’s] eye sees a composite image formed by multiple slices of multiple, different 2D images from multiple projectors, rather than seeing the entirety of any one image projected by a corresponding projector” (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4—10). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 15), and we agree, Thomas teaches a glassless 3D display system that provides “each eye of the viewer ... a different image that changes as the viewer changes position, thereby forming a true 3-D image for the viewer” (Thomas 185 ; see Thomas H 14—15). The Examiner further finds (Final Act. 4; Ans. 15), and we agree, Thomas provides the viewer’s eyes respective images by using projectors that “completely illuminate[] the display screen with the view from [different] angle[s]” (Thomas 1 35, Fig. 2; see Thomas 111). Appellants’ arguments that Thomas’ images “are not converged from the display screen to corresponding viewpoints'1'’ and that the viewer’s eye in Thomas does not “see[] the entirety of any one image” because “a particular viewpoint sees only a small vertical slice of the image from each projector” (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4—10) are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In Thomas, “[mjultiple ‘angular slices’ ... are projected on to a viewing screen” from multiple projectors (Thomas 111). Thomas’ viewer “sees a vertical ‘angular slice’ projected from each angular projection, and each eye sees a different vertical angular slice,” i.e., each angular slice 4 Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 converges to a viewpoint (Thomas 135, Figs. 3—4). Even assuming that a projector projects a 2D image made of multiple angular slices and that those angular slices converge to different viewpoints, as argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 8—9), the claim does not preclude the 2D image from converging to multiple viewpoints. Further, neither the claim nor the Specification define how “each eye sees an entire one of the 2D images” (id.). Even if the viewer’s eye sees multiple angular slices, the claim does not preclude the viewer’s eye from seeing multiple angular slices. Moreover, neither the claim nor the Specification preclude “an entire one of the 2D images” from encompassing an angular slice. As such, Thomas’ angular slices, which converge to respective viewpoints and are seen by a viewer’s respective eyes, teach “optically converging] each projected 2D image from the corresponding 2D image projector to a corresponding, different viewpoint. . . wherein each eye sees an entire one of the 2D images” within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the Thomas teaches or suggests “optically converging] each projected 2D image from the corresponding 2D image projector to a corresponding, different viewpoint. . . wherein each eye sees an entire one of the 2D images,” as recited in claim 1. Issue 2 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brentnall teaches “rays of the optically converged 2D image are diffused to a greater extent vertically than horizontally so that the viewpoint has a greater extent vertically than horizontally,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue “each of Brentnall’s projectors is effectively a point source (i.e., it 5 Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 does not have a greater extent vertically than horizontally)” and so “the retroreflected rays for each image (as projected by the corresponding projector) are returned to a single point, rather than to a viewpoint that has a greater extent vertically than horizontally as recited in the claim” (App. Br. 13—14 (citing Brentnall Fig. 1). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 4; Ans. 16), and we agree, Thomas teaches that “the viewing/display screen diffuses the light for the projected scene over a wide angle vertically (say 60 degrees or more), but only over a very small angle horizontally (say one degree or so- smaller angles are also possible)” (Thomas 1 35). Appellants’ argument that Brentnall does not teach the disputed limitations does not address the Examiner’s finding that Thomas teaches the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the combination of Thomas and Brentnall teaches or suggests “rays of the optically converged 2D image are diffused to a greater extent vertically than horizontally so that the viewpoint has a greater extent vertically than horizontally,” as recited in claim 1. Issue 3 Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Thomas and Brentnall (App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 11—12). Specifically, Appellants argue “the systems of Thomas and Brentnall are incompatible” because in Thomas “each eye sees an image that is formed by slices of different images from different projectors” whereas Brentnall “uses a retroreflector to transmit an entire image from a single projector to a single viewpoint” (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 12). Appellants elaborate that “[mjodifying Thomas with the teaching of Brentnall as suggested by the Examiner” requires “that Thomas’ 6 Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 principle of operation be changed” because Thomas’s “reflective screen is required to be a diffusive screen” but “BrentnalTs retroreflective screen . . . instead converges the [image] rays” to form an eyebox (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 11-12). We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Thomas teaches a 3D image forming and viewing system (Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 15). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Brentnall teaches “a viewing area where the viewer’s eyes are focused thereby rendering a 3D projection to the viewer” (Final Act. 6 (citing Brentnall ^fl[ 36—37, Fig. 1)), i.e., an eyebox formed by viewpoints. The Examiner “combine[s] the system disclosed by Thomas with the viewing zone disclosed by Brentnall in order to allow for a viewer to view 3D, high resolution images from anywhere in a viewing zone” (Final Act. 6 (citing Brentnall 11 11, 36-37)). Appellants’ argument that the combination requires “Thomas’ system [to] use a retroreflective screen, which operates on principles that are fundamentally incompatible with the diffusive screen required by Thomas” (Reply Br. 12; see also App. Br. 15) inappropriately requires the bodily incorporation of BrentnalTs retroreflective screen, upon which the Examiner’s combination does not rely. Rather, the Examiner relies on BrentnalTs teaching of viewing zones, not the particular type of screen used for 3D image formation (Ans. 18). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combines Thomas and Brentnall. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Brentnall. It follows, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—9 and 7 Appeal 2017-007630 Application 14/033,273 15—25, for which Appellants offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability (see App. Br. 15—16). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 15—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Brentnall is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation