Ex Parte Childers et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 7, 2012

10817012 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WINTHROP D. CHILDERS, TIMOTHY F. MYERS, and
WILLIAM WAGNER
_____________

Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1-58 and 61-67.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1 Claims 59 and 60 were previously withdrawn.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, device, and system for selecting
and displaying an image in either two dimensions or three dimensions.
Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of displaying an image frame by projection in
three dimensions (3D) or in two dimensions (2D) with a
projection system, said method comprising:
selecting between a 2D mode of operation and a separate
3D mode of operation for said projection system;
generating and projecting a left image sub-frame and a
right image sub-frame during a frame period if said 3D mode of
operation for said projection system is selected; and
generating and projecting only a 2D image frame during
said frame period if said 2D mode of operation for said
projection system is selected;
wherein said left image sub-frame defines a visual
prospective of a left eye and said right image sub-frame defines
a visual perspective of a right eye.

REFERENCES
Krasnoperov US 4,236,172 Nov. 25, 1980

Songer US 5,671,007 Sep. 23, 1997

Stuettler US 5,870,137 Feb. 9, 1999

McLaine US 6,335,755 B1 Jan. 1, 2002

Divelbiss US 2003/0112507 A1 June 19, 2003

Hochmuth US 2003/0234790 A1 Dec. 25, 2003

Taniguchi US 2004/0058715 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

3

Smith US 2004/0252756 A1 Dec. 16, 2004
(filed June 10, 2003)

Duncan J. Anderson, Uniform Color Illumination for Scrolling Color
LCoS Projection, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4657, 46-53 (2002) (“Anderson”).

Koki Sato & Kunihiko Takano, New Type Electro-Holographic
Display System Using LCDs, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4864, 114-121 (2002)
(“Sato”).

Mark Bolas et al., New Research and Explorations into Multiuser
Immersive Display Systems, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
Vol. 24, No. 1, 18-21 (Jan./Feb. 2004) (“Bolas”).

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 5-7, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, and Smith. Ans. 3-
6.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, and Divelbiss. Ans. 6.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, and Stuettler. Ans. 7.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, Stuettler, and Hochmuth.
Ans. 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, and Hochmuth. Ans. 8-9.
Claims 8-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, and
Krasnoperov. Ans. 9-11.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

4
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, Krasnoperov, and
Divelbiss. Ans. 11-12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, Krasnoperov, and
Anderson. Ans. 12.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, Krasnoperov, and Sato.
Ans. 13.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith,
Krasnoperov, and Bolas. Ans. 13-14.
Claims 19-26, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 58, and 66 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Divelbiss and
Krasnoperov. Ans. 14-21.
Claims 27-30, 33-35, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Songer and McLaine. Ans. 21-
24.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, and Stuettler. Ans. 24-25.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Stuettler, and
Hochmuth. Ans. 25.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

5
Claims 36-38 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, and Krasnoperov.
Ans. 26-27.2
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Krasnoperov, and
Divelbiss. Ans. 27-28.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Krasnoperov, and Sato. Ans. 28.
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Krasnoperov, and
Bolas. Ans. 29.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, and Anderson. Ans. 29-30.
Claims 50 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Divelbiss, Krasnoperov, and Stuettler.
Ans. 30-31.
Claims 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Divelbiss, Krasnoperov, and Bolas.
Ans. 31-32.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Divelbiss, Krasnoperov, and Songer. Ans. 32.

2 The Examiner inadvertently left out claim 42 in the statement of the
rejection, but discussed the rejection of claim 42 under this heading. Ans.
27. As this amounts to harmless error, we have included claim 42 in the
statement of rejection here.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

6
Claims 61, 64, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, and
Taniguchi. Ans. 33-35.3
Claims 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, Taniguchi,
and Stuettler. Ans. 35-37.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Songer, McLaine, Smith, and Taniguchi. Ans. 37-
38.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Songer,
McLaine and Smith teaches or suggests generating and projecting a left
image sub-frame and a right image sub-frame during a frame period if said
3D mode of operation for said projection system is selected; and generating
and projecting only a 2D image frame during said frame period if said 2D
mode of operation for said projection system is selected?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Krasnoperov
and Divelbiss teaches or suggests a first plurality of colors that is distinct
from said second plurality of colors?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Songer and
McLaine teaches or suggests an image processing unit configured to control
said special light modulator?

3 The Examiner inadvertently left out McLaine in the statement of rejection,
but includes McLaine in the rejection of the claim. Ans. 33. We find this to
be harmless error and have included McLaine in the statement of the
rejection here.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

7
Did the Examiner err in combining Songer, Smith, Taniguchi, and
McLaine?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-18 and 67
Claim 1 recites “generating and projecting a left image sub-frame and
a right image sub-frame during a frame period if said 3D mode of operation
for said projection system is selected; and generating and projecting only a
2D image frame during said frame period if said 2D mode of operation for
said projection system is selected.” Appellants argue that the references fail
to disclose these limitations since McLaine teaches that a 3D image is
always being produced, created, and available. App. Br. 16. Therefore,
Appellants contend that since 3D is always generated and available, the
requirement that generating and projecting only a 2D image frame when the
2D mode of operation is selected cannot occur. Reply Br. 7. We disagree.
The claim does not preclude always generating a 3D image sub-frame
as long as it is not projected when the 2D mode of operation is selected. The
Examiner finds that, while always generated, the projection of the left and
right image sub-frames (i.e., 3D) only occurs when the user (1) pays more
and (2) switches a switch. Ans. 38. Thus, if the two operations do not
occur, the user has selected the 2D mode of operation and only the right sub-
frame is projected (i.e., 2D). Ans. 38-39. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-18 and 67, Appellants make the same arguments
with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 15-20 and 34; Reply Br. 6-11 and 25.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

8
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-18 and 67 for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.4

Claims 19-26, 48-58, and 66
Claim 19 recites “said first plurality of colors is distinct from said
second plurality of colors.” The Examiner finds that Krasnoperov teaches
using yellow (a combination of green and red) and cyan (a combination of
green and blue). Ans. 45. Thus, the Examiner finds that green and red and
green and blue are a first plurality of colors and a second plurality of colors
(respectively). Ans. 45. Appellants disagree because Krasnoperov teaches
the use of green in both the first and second groups of colors and the claims
require a “different, i.e., ‘distinct’ plurality of colors.” Reply Br. 9 and 12.
Additionally, Appellants argue that using a common color to make both left
and right sub-frames would not allow for the perception of 3D.5 Reply Br.
12-13.
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that “distinct” only
requires that one of the colors is different. That is, the term “distinct”
encompasses any combination where any one color is different from another.
Thus, even though both sets of colors contain green, both sets of colors are
distinct because they each contain a color not included in the other group.

4 Regarding claims 8-16, Appellants make an additional argument with
respect to these claims as with respect to claim 19 (below). App. Br. 18-20;
Reply Br. 9-11. We additionally sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the same reasons discussed below with respect to claim 19.
5 We note that this argument is not persuasive as Appellants have indicated
in claim 23 that the first plurality of colors is red, green, and blue and in
claim 26 that the second plurality of colors is cyan, yellow, and magenta.
Thus, both of Appellants’ sets of colors also include common colors.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

9
Ans. 46. As Appellants have not specifically defined the term “distinct,” we
find the Examiner’s interpretation to be both reasonable and consistent with
the Specification. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claims 20-26, 48-58, and 66, Appellants make the same
arguments with respect to claim 19. App. Br. 20-25; Reply Br. 11-17.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-26, 48-58, and
66 for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 19.

Claim 27-47
Claim 27 recites “an image processing unit configured to control said
spatial light modulator.” Claims 28-47 depend upon claim 27. The
Examiner interprets the term “spatial light modulator” as a television, movie
screen, or any equivalent display that projects 2D and 3D images. Ans. 47.
We disagree with this interpretation as Appellants have specifically defined
the term as “a device that modulates incident light in a spatial pattern
corresponding to an electrical or optical input.” Reply Br. 17-18 (citing
Spec. ¶ [0025]). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown
that a television or movie screen modulates incident light. Reply Br. 17.
Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-47.

Claims 61-65
The Examiner finds that the combination of Songer, Smith, McLaine,
and Taniguchi teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 61. Ans.
33-34. Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine
these references because Songer, Smith, and Taniguchi are incompatible,
work in a different manner, and teach away from the combination because
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

10
Songer and Smith teach viewing 3D using mechanical viewing glasses and
Taniguchi teaches 3D viewing using “parallax optic.” App. Br. 32.
However, as correctly indicated by the Examiner Taniguchi was not cited for
its display, but rather was cited to show that it was known to capture images
using a normal 2D camera and then convert the image, which has the same
sub-frames, into a 3D image. Ans. 52. Additionally, the Examiner finds
that McLaine teaches selecting between the 2D and 3D modes of operation.
Ans. 33. In response, Appellants argue that McLaine was not cited in the
rejection of claim 61 and that Appellants cannot be legally required to
respond to the rejection since the Examiner has not made or fully articulated
the rejection. Reply Br. 24.
The Examiner identifies the relevant portions of each of the references
(including the McLaine reference) relied on throughout the Non-Final
Rejection on pages 32-33, mailed January 30, 2008, and the Examiner’s
Answer on pages 33-34. To the extent that the Examiner relies on the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the
references, this practice is consistent with current case law. For example,
the Supreme Court explains:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[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
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

11
obviousness”). As our precedents make clear, however, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly
articulated and are based on detailed factual findings that are supported by
the references of record. See Ans. 33-34. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 61.
Regarding claims 62-65 Appellants make the same arguments with
respect to claim 61. App. Br. 33-34; Reply Br. 23-25. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 62-65 for the same reasons discussed
supra with respect to claim 61.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Songer,
McLaine and Smith teaches or suggests generating and projecting a left
image sub-frame and a right image sub-frame during a frame period if said
3D mode of operation for said projection system is selected; and generating
and projecting only a 2D image frame during said frame period if said 2D
mode of operation for said projection system is selected.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Krasnoperov and Divelbiss teaches or suggests a first plurality of colors that
is distinct from said second plurality of colors.
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Songer and
McLaine teaches or suggests an image processing unit configured to control
said special light modulator.
Appeal 2009-015053
Application 10/817,012

12
The Examiner did not err in combining Songer, Smith, Taniguchi, and
McLaine.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26, 48-58, and 61-67 is
affirmed and the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27-47 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc