Ex Parte Bellis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

11031177 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HAROLD E. BELLIS II and
GREGORY J. HEWLETT
____________________

Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
The invention on appeal is directed to “systems and methods related
to the field of display systems, and more particularly to color correction of
display systems, particularly display systems using primary color sources to
generate full-color images and using color wheels to sequentially provide the
primary color sources from a single white light source.” (Spec. 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A video display system, comprising:

a spatial light modulator, such that said spatial light
modulator creates images by deflection of selected ones of an
array of individual pixels over a period of time, wherein the
period is divided into intervals;

a light source operable to illuminate the spatial light
modulator;

a color-wheel filter interposed between the light source
and the spatial light modulator, the color-wheel comprising:

a plurality of color segments;

at least one neutral density segment that is
complementary in color to a corresponding one of the color
segments and having a transmissivity that is lower than that of
the corresponding one of the complementary color segments;
and

Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

3
at least one neutral density spoke at a border between the
at least one neutral density segment and the corresponding one
of the complementary color segments; and

a processing system operable to modulate the pixels of
the spatial light modulator according to bit-planes and bit
sequences defined for the bit-planes, the bit-planes including at
least one bit-plane to be applied when the light source is
impinging on the neutral density spoke at the border between
the at least one neutral density segment and the at least one
complementary color segment.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Morgan
Ben-David
US 6,445,505 B1
US 7,113,152 B2
Sep. 3, 2002
Sep. 26, 2006

REJECTION
Claim 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ben-David and Morgan.

Claim Grouping
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10 et seq.), we decide the
appeal on the basis of claims 1, 5, and 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Contentions
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend that the cited portions of Ben-
David do not show to one skilled in the art the following three limitations of
claim 1:
(i) “a plurality of color segments;"
Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

4
(ii) “at least one neutral density segment that is complementary in
color to a corresponding one of the color segments and having a
transmissivity that is lower than that of the corresponding one
of the complementary color segments"; and
(iii) "at least one neutral density spoke at a border between the at
least one neutral density segment and the corresponding one of
the complementary color segments."
(App. Br. 11).

Issue 1: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
limitations (i), (ii), and (ii), as enumerated above?

Analysis
Regarding limitation (i), the disputed plurality of color segments, we
agree with the Examiner that at least Ben-David’s Fig. 4A and the associated
description (col. 12, ll. 42-52) would have taught or suggested this claimed
feature. (See Ans. 16). See also color filter wheel 54 depicted in Ben-
David’s Fig. 3B; col. 9, ll. 2-3
Regarding limitation (ii), although Appellants aver that “Ben-David
Figure 4A shows seven (7) neutral density filters only and it does not show
separate color segments apart from the neutral density filters” (App. Br. 11),
we observe that Ben-David expressly teaches the use of a separate ND filter
in the description of Figure 4A:
As described in greater detail below, each color section is a
different color filter, which preferably has a separate ND filter.
The ND filter does not affect the spectral content of the filtered
light, but rather alters the intensity of the filtered light over the
entire spectrum.
(Col. 12, ll. 46-51, emphasis added).

Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

5
Regarding limitation (iii), (“at least one neutral density spoke at a
border between the at least one neutral density segment and the
corresponding one of the complementary color segments” – claim 1), we
observe that the Examiner relies on the secondary Morgan reference for
teaching or suggesting this limitation. (Ans. 5; see also Morgan, col. 4, l. 9,
“transition across a filter spoke - from radial 112 to radial 114,” as shown in
Fig. 1). Appellants attack the Ben-David reference in isolation (App. Br. 12-
13), and fail to address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Morgan.
(Ans. 5-6). Our reviewing court guides that one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error regarding limitations (i), (ii), and (ii).

Combinability of the References under § 103
Issue 2: Under §103, did the Examiner err in combining the cited
references?
Notwithstanding Appellants’ multiple arguments contending that the
Examiner has improperly combined the cited references (App. Br. 12-13 ),
we are of the view that Appellants’ claimed invention merely arranges prior
art elements with each element performing the same function it had been
known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement. The Supreme Court guides that such a combination of familiar
elements is obvious. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

6
At the outset, we disagree with Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 13 )
regarding the Examiner’s purported reliance on impermissible hindsight in
view of Appellant's claims. Although we are fully cognizant of the
hindsight bias that often plagues determinations of obviousness, Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966), we are also mindful that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results,” KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
We acknowledge that “‘[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
However, in reviewing the record, we find the Examiner provides an
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning that sufficiently
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness. (See Ans. 5-6, e.g., where the
Examiner specifically points to Morgan, at col. 3, ll. 60-65).
Regarding Appellants’ multiple “teaching away” arguments (App. Br.
12-13), we note that teaching an alternative or equivalent method does not
teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d
433, 438 (CCPA 1965). Thus, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more
than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
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) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

7
This reasoning is applicable here. For these reasons, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred by improperly
combining the cited references under § 103.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-
11, and 23 (not separately argued) fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Dependent claim 5

Claim 5 recites: “A video display system according to claim 4,
wherein the bit sequences are pulse-width-modulated bit sequences.”
Appellants contend:
In addition to its dependence from allowable claim 1
detailed above, claim 5 also recites that the "the bit sequences
are pulse-width-modulated bit sequences." The Examiner cites
to Ben-David column 12, lines 39-41 and states that this
citation shows a "PWM process for the bit planes." Appellants
respectfully disagree. Indeed, in the exact same paragraph cited
by the Examiner, Ben-David states that in the embodiment
there being described, "PWM is not applied to the light." This
could not be much clearer that PWM, as recited in claim 5, is
not used in the cited Ben-David approach. PWM is understood
in the art and also explained in the Specification in connection
with bit planes having different weighting, that is, for each
different bit in a plane, there is an associated weight that defines
the respective duration of time for the bit. Such PWM weights
are shown by way of example under each bit plane in the
present application's Figure 4 (i.e., 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128)
and also in Figure 5 (i.e., .25, .5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32). In contrast,
Ben-David not only expressly states that "PWM is not applied,"
but its Figures 4A and 4B reinforce that statement in that each
bit is applied for a same period of time and its description states
that "[e]ach bit plane occupies equal time duration ... "

Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

8
(App. Br. 14).

We decline Appellants’ invitation to read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. 1 (Id.). We also observe that Ben-David
expressly teaches that pulse width modulation (PWM) of light is a technique
well known in the art:
G]ray levels are achieved by pulse width modulation (PWM) of
the light, a technique which is well known in the art…if PWM
is applied to the light, the least significant bit plane should be
presented on spatially modulated mask 56 for only 11.2
microseconds.

(Ben-David, col. 12, ll. 19-31).

Appellants rely (App. Br. 14) on the following disclosure in Ben-
David in contending that PWM is not applied:
To extend the display period and therefore to avoid such a rapid
refresh or change rate for spatially modulated mask 56,
optionally and preferably PWM is not applied to the light.
Instead, the illumination time is preferably divided uniformly
between the bit planes.

(Ben-David, col. 12, ll. 33-35, emphasis added).

However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 20) that although Ben-
David may prefer to use uniform lengths of illumination time between the
bit-planes, Ben-David still teaches that PWM may optionally be used. (Ben-
David, col. 12, ll. 33-35). A prior art reference must be considered for

1 A particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be
read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

9
everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the
particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v.
Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also
Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness is in error regarding claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 5.

Dependent claim 22

Claim 22 recites: “A video display system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one neutral density segment consists of a single neutral
density segment.”
The Examiner rejected claim 22 on the ground that “[s]egment is a
broad term and an area can be interpreted as a smaller piece by itself or even
the entire wheel as this language is broad.” (Final Action 12).
Appellants contend, inter alia:

However, pending claims must be "given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The
Specification gives meaning to the word "segment" as used in
the claim, for example on its very first page where it discusses
Morgan and states that Morgan's "color wheel includes at least
one filter "segment" for each of the primary colors." With
reference to the illustration of Morgan, the meaning of segment
is demonstrated. Later in the Specification, it states that "when
using a three-color equal-segment filter wheel, each primary
color is produced only 1/3 of the time." As a final example,
with reference to the present application Figure 2, the
Specification states: . . . .

(App. Br. 15).
Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

10

We again decline Appellants’ invitation to read limitations from
the Specification into the claims. Moreover, we decline Appellants’
invitation to interpret claim 22 in light of the prior art (Morgan)
disclosed in the background of the invention section. (Id.).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have interpreted each color section C1-C7 in Ben-David’s Figure 4A as a
color segment. Ben-David teaches that each color section is a different color
filter, which preferably has a separate neutral density filter. (Ben-David (col.
12, ll. 47-49). We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure teaches, or at
least suggests, that each color section would have only one neutral density
segment. (Ans. 20-21).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. For
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner on pages 20-
21 of the Answer, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 22.

Independent claim 12

Appellants do not present separate arguments for independent
claim 12, and associated dependent claims:

Independent claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-21 and
24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable and
obvious over Ben-David in view of Morgan.
Independent claim 12 includes various aspects
comparable to those set forth above that patentably distinguish
claim 1. Thus, Appellants hereby incorporate herein the above
arguments relating to claim 1 and its dependent claims to the
extent they equally apply to claim12 and its dependent claims
Appeal 2010-002124
Application 11/031,177

11
and respectfully submit that the rejection of claim 12, and its
dependent claims, should be reversed.
(App. Br. 16).

Because we did not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive regarding
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-21, 24, and 25 for
the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 under § 103.
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).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

tkl